dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the suit property is the ancestral property of defendant no.2. Defendant no.2 was the Karta of the joint family. At the time of execution of agreement to sell, the plaintiffs were minors. They were not parties in T.S.No.4 of 1978. Defendant no.2 did not represent the interest of his minor sons. They have a major share in the property. The judgment passed in T.S.No.4 of 1978, Ext.3, is not binding on them. The suit is not barred by res judicate. Onus lies on defendant no.1 to prove that she made a reasonable enquiry about the existence of the legal necessity of the transaction in question. Defendant no.1 had failed to prove the same. Therefore, sale of the suit land on the basis of the decree to the extent of the shares of plaintiffs is invalid. Sale of the suit land is valid to the extent of 1/3rd share of defendant no.2, but in view of the provisions contained in Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, defendant no.1 cannot be allowed joint possession of the dwelling house along with the plaintiffs. Felt aggrieved, defendant no.1 filed T.A.No.14 of 1989 before the learned Sub-Judge, Jagatsinghpur. Learned appellate court came to a conclusion that defendant no.2 was the Karta of the family. The judgment and decree passed in T.S.No.4 of 1978 is binding on the plaintiffs. Defendant no.2 as the Karta of the joint family had filed the suit for himself and on behalf of the minor sons. Defendant no.2 was entitled to sell the interest of the minors to clear the debts. Agreement to sell, Ext.2, was for legal necessity. Held so, it allowed the appeal.
