M.R. Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 24, 1965, rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. A usual suit for declaration was filed by the Appellant who alleged in the plaint that sale of 182 Kanals and 2 Marias of ancestral land made by Kali Ram and Pehlada his father and uncle respectively, on February 28, 1963, for a sum of Rs. 11000/ - in favour of Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 was void and ineffectual against their reversionary rights after the death of the said Kali Ram and Pehlada. He had alleged that the sale was for no consideration and necessity. The parties went to trial on the following issues: 1. Is the land in suit ancestral Qua the Plaintiff and the vendors ?
(2.) ARE the Plaintiff and the vendors governed by Customary Law in matters of alienation and succession ? If so, what is that custom ? Is the sale for consideration and legal necessity or an act of good management ?
(3.) DID Defendants 5 and 6 sell land beyond their shares ? If so, what is its effect ? 2. The learned trial Court held on issues Nos. 1 and 4 that only 21/196th part of suit land was ancestral, issue No. 2 was held in favour of the Plaintiff -Appellant, on issue No. 3 it was held that the sale was for consideration but constituted an act of good management. On these findings, the suit filed by the Plaintiff -Appellant was dismissed. The learned lower appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court on all issues and dismissed the appeal. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has not been able to challenge the finding arrived at by both the learned Courts below on the issue relating to the ancestral nature of the property. Consequently, it must be held that only 21/196th share of the property was ancestral. On the question of necessity, the Learned Counsel has urged that the view taken by the learned lower appellate Court is incorrect. He has submitted that the sale of ancestral land could be regarded as an act of good management if the (sic)ield realised therefrom is properly invested by the vendor in procuring some property which would then be regarded as ancestral property. According to the Learned Counsel, the permanent disposal of the property which does not result in any tangible gain to the reversionary body cannot be regarded as an act of good management. 4. The judgments relied upon by the learned lower appellate Court are really distinguishable. In Chet Singh and Gopal Singh v. Allah Ditta and Piran Ditta, 47 PLR 1912, sale was made of equity of redemption of ancestral land which yielded little or no profit to the mortgagees and at the time of the sale it was foreseen that it would be impossible for the mortgagor or his descendants to redeem the mortgage. In Khanu v. Fateh Khan, 87 PLR 1912, sale of waste land of insignificant value by a father was held to be valid when it was shown that the father was not an extravagant or an imprudent person.;