That decree of the Munsiff Court was based on its findings (i) that the disputed lands were Hindu joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3; (ii) that the sale of the disputed lands in favour of defendant 4 and father of defendant 5 had since been made by defendant 1 without the consent of his brothers, the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 and without legal necessity of the family, the same was void ab initio; (iii) that the plea of defendants 1, 4 and 5 that the tenancy revived, if the sale by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 4 and father of defendant 5 was found to be vs ' d, was unacceptable ', and (iv) that the sale by defendant ] in favour of defendant 4 and father of defendant 5 of the disputed lands was also void since sale of them (Fragments) was prohibited under the provision.