IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 671 OF 2008 Ramchandra Dattatraya Prabhudesai & Anr. ...... ...... Appellants V/s Diwakar Yashwant Prabhudesai & Ors. ...... ...... Respondents. Mr.G.S.Godbole, Adv. For the appellants. Ms.Sangita Bhole, Adv. For respondent No.1. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 8th DECEMBER, 2008. PC: Heard learned advocates for respective parties. Appellants are the original defendant Nos.11 and 16. Respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff. Suit was filed for partition and separate possession and also for declaration that sale deed executed by defendant No.11 in favour of defendant Nos.12 to 16 is illegal and not binding. The trial Court decreed the suit for partition and possession. The trial Court also held that sale deeds executed by defendant No.11 (present appellant No.1) are not binding on the plaintiffs. The appellant challenged this decree before the lower appellate court by filing an appeal. However by a decree, which is impugned in present second appeal, same was also dismissed. 2. There is no dispute that the suit properties were ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 21 and therefore the decree for partition and separate possession cannot be faulted. So far as the 1 sale deeds executed by present appellant No.1-defendant No.11 are concerned same are executed in favour defendant Nos. 12 to 16. Defendant No.12 is the wife of defendant No.11 and defendant Nos. 13 to 16 are the sons of defendant No.11. In view of the above relationship I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the lower Courts below that the sale deeds are not executed for legal necessity. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, is involved in the present second appeal. Hence the same stands dismissed. In view of disposal of second appeal Civil Application No.1495/08 does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. 8.12.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 2