1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. S.A.NO.242 OF 2009 Sukhdeo Krishna Sardar and anr...vs.. Shivnarayan Motilal Jaiswal and others ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's order. orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. Dated : 10th August 2009. 1. Heard Mr.N.S.Badhe, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.A.S.Kilor, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal is preferred against the two concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. 3. The appellants had instituted a suit for setting aside alienation which is said to have been effected by their father – defendant no.3 in the matter. It was the contention of the appellants that the suit property was the joint family property and father had no right to sell the suit property and therefore they sought setting aside alienation. 2 4. Purchasers – defendant nos.1 and 2 i.e. the present respondents no.1 and 2, contended that the suit property was sold by the father for legal necessity and, therefore, the said sale was binding on the plaintiffs. 5. The learned judge of the trial court recorded the findings that the suit property was sold for legal necessity and there was evidence available to show that it was so sold for legal necessity. The present appellants preferred appeal before the district judge. The district judge also concurred with the findings. 6. After having gone through the judgment of the learned judge of the appellate court, it is clear that the learned judge of the appellate court has considered the evidence of the parties which goes to show that the father was indebted to Cooperative Society, Gummi as well as to the bank and his children were taking education. I have also gone through the evidence recorded by the trial court. The plaintiffs had examined on their behalf one Sudhakar, who is one of the plaintiffs. He has clearly admitted in the cross-examination that his father owed sum of Rs.5000/- to Rs.6000/- to Cooperative Society prior to the execution of the sale-deed. He further admitted that prior to the execution of the sale- deed his father also owed sum of Rs.7300/- to the Central 3 Bank of India. He has further admitted that the notices were issued by them for recovery of the amount. 7. This evidence has been rightly appreciated by the first appellate court as well as the trial court. There is also a recital in the sale-deed itself that the suit property is being sold for this purpose. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that entire burden lies upon the purchaser and he has not filed any document to show that the family was really indebted to the bank and the society. He also submits that the defendants did not state so in examination in-chief. The submission has no force. Once the witness for the plaintiffs himself gives an admission in the cross-examination that his father owed amount of Rs.6000/- to the Society and Rs.7300/- to the bank, there was no need to file any documentary evidence by the defendants on record. 9. The evidence has been rightly appreciated. There is no perversity in the appreciation of the evidence. There is therefore, no substance in the appeal. No substantial question of law is raised. The appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. 4 chute