for. The facts and circumstances to the case at hand read in conjunction with the concept of the nature of the property involved i.e., the suit property being the hindu joint family property as well as the parties involved in the matter being the members of the joint hindu family at the relevant point of time and that the first defendant is the Kartha of the joint hindu family, in addition to that, as above noted, the first defendant is not shown to be indulging in any evil acts and for such needs he had effected the sale transaction and also the above not being the case of the plaintiffs, as such, it is found that when the first defendant, in the capacity of the Kartha of the joint hindu family is entitled to alienate the property of the joint hindu family and when it is further seen that the sale transaction effected by him would be binding upon all the members of the joint family, particularly, the plaintiffs, on the doctrine of pious obligation, merely on the footing that legal necessity has not been established by the second defendant, that by itself would not automatically result in the entitlement of the plaintiffs to obtain their shares in the suit property.
