1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL No. 462/2010. Sau. Chandrakala @ Sudha Janardhan Pathade VERSUS Sau. Manda @ Lahanu Shriram Kadwe and another. ________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 18.01.2011. Heard Shri J.R. Kidilay, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri S.S. Ghate, the learned Counsel for the respondents. This Second Appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2006 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.97/2001, by which, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha, dated 16.04.2001 dismissing the Special Civil Suit No. 89/1995, came to be confirmed. The appellant herein is the original plaintiff, who had filed the said Special Civil Suit No. 89/1995 for declaration that the three sale-deeds executed in favour of the defendant nos. 2 2 and 3 were ab-initio void and not binding on the plaintiff and for partition and separate possession. The properties involved in the said suit are – (1) Field Survey No.24/2 area 2.22 H.R. sold vide Sale- deed dated 31.05.1978 for Rs.3,500/-; (2) Field Survey No.24/2 area 2.22 H.R. sold vide Sale-deed dated 28.03.1980 for Rs.4,000/- and (3) House at Village Sarwadi sold vide Sale-deed dated 19.11.1979 for Rs.2,000/-. The plaintiff had filed the suit on the basis, that it was a joint family property and that the plaintiff was entitled to her share therein. The said suit was resisted on the basis of the said sale deeds, by which according to the defendant nos. 1 and 2, who are the sisters of the plaintiff, the property in question was sold to the defendants. The defence set up was, that the said properties were sold on account of legal necessity of Barkuji Bowade, who was father of the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 2. In so far as the legal necessity is concerned, both the Courts below have recorded concurrently that the same has been proved and have recorded a finding that on account of the illness of the mother, the said properties had to be sold to raise funds. Both the Courts below have alluded to Exh.61 in their respective judgments, which is an ‘Inland Letter’ written by 3 the plaintiff to the defendant no.2, by which letter the plaintiff had shown her disinclination to buy the properties in question, when the same was offered to her. The said Inland letter, as per the Courts below, unmistakably is a pointer to the fact that the plaintiff was aware that Barkuji was required to sell the properties for raising funds on account of illness of his wife and on account of the debt, that he had incurred for the marriage of the plaintiff. In my view, since both the Courts below have recorded concurrently that the legal necessity has been proved, the above Second Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd