As per case facts, the Regular First Appeal and Cross Objection challenged the trial court's decision to dismiss a partition suit. Plaintiffs and other defendants (except defendant No. 12) claimed ... the properties were joint family assets and sought a share. They argued that sale deeds executed by the father of plaintiff No.1 and defendants No. 7 & 8 in favour of defendant No. 12 were not binding, lacked legal necessity, and were done without their knowledge. Defendant No. 12 contended to be a bona fide purchaser, asserting the sales were for family necessity and possession was delivered years ago. The trial court found the properties joint but upheld the sales as for family necessity, partly barring the suit by limitation, and granted share only in remaining properties. The question arose whether the trial court erred in concluding the sale deeds were binding and for family benefit, thereby rejecting the claims of the plaintiffs and other defendants regarding the alienated properties. Finally, the appellate court, upon re-evaluating the evidence, affirmed that the sales were indeed for family necessity. It noted that several family members, including the first plaintiff and defendant No. 5, had attested the sale deeds. The existence of family loans was also admitted by witnesses, and the challenge to the sales came eight years after their execution and only after the demise of the father. Consequently, the court found no error in the trial court's assessment of the evidence and upheld the original judgment, dismissing both the Regular First Appeal and the Cross Objections.