themselves have admitted that defendant No.1 was not having any bad-vices and taking note of the evidence on record, Trial Court comes to the conclusion that sale made by the kartha of the family is for the family necessity. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged by the appellants/plaintiffs that the Trial Court has committed an error and framed the point for consideration with regard to whether the plaintiffs proved that themselves and defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the joint family members and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties and First Appellate Court also given the finding that suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family in answering point No.1 as in the affirmative and the First Appellate Court also considering the grounds urged in the appeal, framed the point for consideration that whether defendant No.6 prove that item Nos.1, 2(a), 2(b), 2(d) and 2(e) were sold for family necessities and considering the contention of defendant No.6 that he is a bonafide purchaser taken note of material on record i.e., document of sale deeds at Ex.D7 to D10 and also examined DW5 who is a attesting witness to Ex.D8 and also one of the legal heir of attesting witness who
