1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 299 of 2007 Bhagwan Dattarao Gawali & Ors. Vs. Ramchandra Lahane & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri Madkholkar Adv. for appellants. Shri C. A. Joshi Adv. for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 7 th April, 2008. This second appeal has been preferred by the original plaintiffs who were unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Plaintiffs sought to set aside the alienation said to be made by father and husband i.e. defendant No.4 in favour of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and 3. It was alleged by the plaintiff 2 that the defendant No.4 had no reason to sell the suit property. It was joint family property and plaintiffs have share in the property. It is alleged that property was sold for immaterial purpose and therefore it needs to be set aside. Defendants contended that said property was purchased bonafide by him after paying all consideration and the allegations of the plaintiffs that there was no need for defendant no.4 to sell the property was not correct. Learned Judge of the Court found that there was a legal necessity to sell the property. Defendant No.4 was not addicted to any kind of vices. He found that transaction in suit was not well-known transaction as alleged by the plaintiffs and the defendant No.4. Holding so learned Judge of the trial Court dismissed the suit. First appellate Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court and also found that 3 the suit was barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant contended before me that trial Court has not considered the question of legal necessity and there was no issue. After having gone through the judgment of the trial Court I find that an issue in regard to legal necessity was framed and it has been answered. Defendant No.4's contention that it was a loan transaction has been negatived by the trial Court correctly. The transaction in suit had taken place in the year 1997 and the suit has been filed in the year 2002. learned Judge of the first appellate Court found that therefore suit was barred by limitation the same having not been filed within the period of three years. It appears from the plaint allegation that plaintiffs 1 and 2 were 30 and 33 years 4 old. While No.3 is mother who is 55 years old. It was therefore incumbent on the part of the plaintiffs to have instituted a suit within 3 years from the date of alienation. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that appellant came to know of the alienation when the defendant No.4 was dispossessed in the year 2000. The submission carries no weight. Plaintiffs and defendant No.4 are said to be members of the joint family and the property is said to be ancestral. It appears from the plaint that all of them were living in the same village and since they were living in the same village it cannot be believed that plaintiffs were not aware of the same. Learned Judges of the Court below have rightly appreciated the evidence. There is no substantial question of 5 law involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk