1 S.A.NO.668.04+2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 668 OF 2004 Maharudra Baburao Surwase and others ... Appellants V E R S U S Baburao Bhima Surwase and others ... Respondents ... Mr.S.V.Chandole,Advocate holding for Mr.V.G.Sakolkar,Advocate for Appellants Mr.R.T.Nagargoje,Advocate for Respondent No.2 & 3. Mrs.Anjali Bajpai-Dube,Advocate for Respondent Nos 6 and 7. ... WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 667 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11427 OF 2006 Maharudra Baburao Surwase and others ... Appellants/ Applicants V E R S U S Baburao Bhima Surwase and others ... Respondents ... Mr.S.V.Chandole,Advocate holding for Mr.V.G.Sakolkar,Advocate for Appellants/Applicants Mr.R.T.Nagargoje,Advocate for Respondent No.2 & 3. Mr.R.K.Ashtekar,Advocate for respondent no.5 Mrs.Anjali Bajpai-Dube,Advocate for Respondent Nos 6 and 7. Respondent Nos,1 and 4 are served. ... 2 S.A.NO.668.04+2 WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 626 OF 2007 Maharudra Baburao Surwase and others ... Appellants V E R S U S Baburao Bhima Surwase and others ... Respondents ... Mr.S.V.Chandole,Advocate holding for Mr.V.G.Sakolkar,Advocate for Appellants Mr.R.T.Nagargoje,Advocate for Respondent No.2 & 3. Mr.R.K.Ashtekar,Advocate for respondent no.5 Mrs.Anjali Bajpai-Dube,Advocate for Respondent Nos 6 and 7. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2010 PER COURT 1] Heard. 2] In this case there was practically only one question of fact between the parties, that was "Whether the the original defendant Nos. 4 and 5 could prove that portion of the suit land which they purchased in 1983 was sold for legal necessity or for benefit of the estate". 3] The trial Court held that, it was not for legal necessity nor it was for the benefit of the estate. The appellate Court by giving cogent reason hold that if not for legal necessity the 3 S.A.NO.668.04+2 transaction is benefit of the estate of the joint family. On perusal of reasoning recorded by learned Judge of the first Appellate Court, it is found that reasons are cogent and no interference is required in such appeals. If the question of fact was decided against the appellants, there is no substantial question of law involved in these appeals. Therefore, the appeals stand dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Application No. 11427 OF 2006 in Second Appeal No. 667 OF 2004 stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/