P.N.SHINGHAL, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal which arises from the appellate judgment and decree of District Judge, Pratapgarh, dated March 22, 1963.
(2.) AS the appeal succeeds on the question of jurisdiction which was the subject matter of issue No. 5 in the trial court, it is not necessary to state the facts in any detail. The plaintiff claimed to be the adopted son of Bhooralal defendant No. 1. This Bhooralal sold the lands and the well described in paragraph 4 of the plaint to Sangram Singh defendant No. 2, the present appellant, under sale deed Ex. 2 dated August 18, 1957 and delivered the possessor also to him, In his turn, Sangram Singh sold a portion of the suit lands to Madanlal defendant No 5 on September 25, 1957. He sold the rest of the lands to Mohan Lal defendant No. 3 on November 22, 1957. The plaintiff therefore raised the present suit on April 16, 1958 alleging that the suit lands were ancestral agricultural lands which were in the joint possession of his father Bhooralal and himself, and that as they were not sold by his father Bhooralal for legal necessity or for the payment of any antecedent debt, the sale was void. The plaintiff prayed for the cancellation of the sale teed and for the restoration of possession to him or to him and his father Bhooralal jointly. He also prayed for the recovery of damages on account of the dispossession.
(3.) DEFENDANT Bhooralal denied having taken the plaintiff in adoption and traversed the claim in the suit altogether. He died during the course of the trial and his name was struck of from the cause title. Separate written statements were filed by the remaining defendants. Defendants Sangram Singh and Mohanlal filed one written statement. They denied the plaintiff's adoption as well as the claim that the suit lands were ancestral properties. It was pleaded that the sale was made for legal necessity and that defendant Bhooralal could make the sale in his capacity as the manager of the family. They also pleaded that the case was triable exclusively by a revenue court. It is not necessary to refer to the other written statement.;