(1) SA. 18.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2010 Bhimrao S/o Vithoba Munde and others .. Appellants (Orig. Plaintiffs) VERSUS Kashinath S/o Appa Doifode and others .. Respondents (Orig. Defendants) Mr. M.P. Tripathi, Advocate for the appellants Mr. K.M. Babhulgaonkar, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 Respondent no.5 dead. ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Shri M.P. Tripathi, who appears for the appellants is given liberty to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellants. 2] The appellants who were original plaintiffs, by filing this suit sought partition of suit properties alleging that Uttam, the brother of appellant no.1 and father of appellant no.2 sold the suit lands without having any legal necessity. The Courts below held against the plaintiffs. They held (2) SA. 18.2010 concurrently that the partition between the plaintiff no.1 and Uttam took place prior to the suit sale alienations and so, the plaintiff no.1 has no case of complaint. The Courts below also held that even otherwise the lands in question were sold for legal necessity. 3] The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants contended that the Courts below failed to take cognizance of a peculiar feature of this case. He mentioned that the plaintiff no.2 who is son of vendor Uttam, did not get an opportunity to challenge the alienations independently. However, this issue does not require separate consideration. Assuming after the partition between the plaintiff no.1 and Uttam, Uttam and plaintiff no.2 and others formed a joint family and assuming that the suit properties were ancestral properties of Uttam and his family members, still the Courts below held that Uttam had legal necessity for alienating the joint family property. So, the plaintiff no.2 has no independent case to agitate the cause separately and independently. In fact, while the case was before the Courts below, there was no whisper on behalf of the plaintiff no.2, who attained majority four years after filing of the suit, that he had a different case than that of the plaintiff no.1. (3) SA. 18.2010 4] The Appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law and the findings on fact recorded by the Courts below, appear un-assailable. So, the Second Appeal should fail. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp