1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.270 OF 2008 Vilas Narayan Jagdale & ors ..Appellants V/s. Manik Shivram Jagdale (deceased) ..Respondents through legal heirs & ors Mr.Ajit Kenjale, Advocate, for the appellants Mr.P.J.Shinde, Advocate, for the respondent Nos.1A to 1E CORAM : C. L. PANGARKAR, J. DATE : 7TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. . This Second Appeal has been preferred by the original plaintiff, who had lost in both the Courts. The plaintiffs contended that the suit properties belong to the joint family of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 & 3. It is their contention that the Sale Deed was executed in favour of defendant No.1 by defendant No.2. It was in breach of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the Bombay Prevention of 2 Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holding Act, 1948. 2. The defendant No.1 resisted the suit and contended that the Sale Deed was executed in his favour by defendant No.2 to discharge a loan incurred by him from the Land Development Bank. Their submission is that the property was sold for the legal necessity. The Learned Judge of the Trial Court has held that the Sale Deed which was executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 was for satisfying the loan incurred from the Land Development Bank. He found that since the property was sold for satisfying the loan it was not proper to hold that defendant No.2 was addicted to any kind of vices. The learned Judge of the first Appellate Court also confirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Having gone through the Judgment, particularly paragrahs 22 & 29, it is very clear that defendant No.2 had sold the property to 3 defendant No.1 in order to satisfy the debt incurred by defendant No.2 from the Loan Development Bank. From the Sale Deed it is revealed that the loan incurred by defendant No.2 from the Loan Development Bank has been repaid by defendant No.1 and balance of the amount has been paid to the defendant No.2. The learned Judge of the first Appellate Court has considered this aspect and was right in holding that the property was sold in order to satisfy the loan incurred as also the fact that there is no pleading in the plaint that defendant No.2 was addicted to any kind of vices and he has proved the Sale Deed. All these things have been rightly considered by the first Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submits before the Court that the Sale Deed was not properly proved. His submission is not correct. The Sale Deed was shown to the defendant No.2, who had executed the Sale Deed. No substantial question of law is urged. 4 3. The above Second Appeal stands dismissed. (C.L.PANGARKAR, J.)