IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.853 OF 2001. APPEAL NO.853 OF 2001. APPEAL NO.853 OF 2001. Arvind Ramchandra Foujdar & Ors. ...Appellants Versus. Ramchandra Ganesh Foujdar (deceased) through his legal heirs: 1. Sau Vijaya Pandurang Deshpande & Ors. ...Respondents Ms A.R.S.Baxi for the Appellants. Shri R.S.Apte i/by Shri A.A.Garge for the Respondents No.3A to 3D. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 12th February, 2008. : 12th February, 2008. : 12th February, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The Second Appeal is by the original plaintiffs. The first to fourth appellants are sons of the first respondent (first defendant) and the fifth appellant is the wife of the first respondent. The second and third respondents are purchasers of a part of the suit property from the first respondent under Sale Deed dated 09th September, 1977. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and possession in which there was a challenge to the sale effected by the first respondent in favour of the second and third respondents. The suit was dismissed. In an appeal preferred by the present appellants, the Appellate court has modified the decree. The Appellate Court held that the sale transaction dated 09th September, 1977 was for legal necessity. The Appellate Court held that the first respondent performed marriages of his three daughters (sisters of the : 2 : 2 : 2 : appellant Nos.1 to 4) during the period from 1972 to 1979 and the first to fourth appellants who are the sons of the first respondent did not give any help to the first respondent. However, the learned Appellate Court found that area of the suit land is 28 Acres and 10 Gunthas out of which only an area of 10 Acres was sold by the fifth respondent, second and third respondent. Therefore, in respect of the said balance land, a decree for partition has been passed in favour of the appellants. 2. The submission of the learned advocate for the appellants is that the second and third respondents have not discharged the burden on them to prove that the sale was for legal necessity. It is submitted that no evidence was adduced by the second and third respondents to show that the first respondent had obtained a loan of Rs.7,000/- from Mallappa. It is submitted that the Sale Deed does not contain a recital that the property was required to be sold as the first respondent needed money for marriage of his daughters. It is submitted that the second and third respondents have admitted that they are not bonafide purchasers. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. In the written statement filed by the second and third respondents a specific plea was taken that the first : 3 : 3 : 3 : respondent sold the suit property for meeting the expenses of the marriage of his daughters and for repayment of dues of the society. At the time of recording of evidence, the appellants-plaintiffs were aware of the said plea. However, no evidence is forthcoming from them to show that any one of them contributed to expenditure of marriage of their three sisters. The Appellate Court found that the first respondent was a primary teacher who retired in 1971. The witness examined by second and third respondents deposed about the poor financial condition of the first respondent. The said witness deposed that marriage of one of the three daughters was performed in the year 1979. After considering the oral testimony of the witnesses, the Appellate Court found that the first to fourth appellants had not given any help to the first respondent for marriage of their sisters. The Appellate Court found that the first respondent had retired in the year 1971 as a primary teacher and that is the reason why the Appellate Court has accepted the legal necessity for the sale of a part of the suit property. It is very difficult to find fault with the said finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court. As regards rest of the suit property which is not sold to the second and third respondents, a decree for partition has been passed. Once there is a valid finding that the sale in favour of the second and third respondents was for legal : 4 : 4 : 4 : necessity, it is not necessary to deal with the submission made regarding bonafide purchase of the suit property by the second and third respondents. 4. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs. Judge. Judge. Judge.