1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 1529 OF 2004 Deelip Sambhaji Kadam and others ..APPELLANTS V E R S U S Dattaji s/o Gunderao Kadam and others. ..RESPONDENTS. Shri Padmakar Deshpande, Advocate for the appellants. Smt.G.N.Chincholikar, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 24TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiffs raising an exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. The suit was presented by the plaintiff questioning the alienation made by the respondent-father in favour of other defendants. It is contended that the defendant no.1/father of the plaintiff was addicted to bad voices and in order to fulfill his lust, he had alienated the property. It is also contended that, there was no legal necessity to alienate the land. The plaintiffs as such contends that the alienation made by their father is not binding on them to the extent of their shares in the property. 2. The defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing their written statement. It is contended that after effecting the sale of the ancestral property, the defendant no.1/father, had purchased some other properties. It 2 has also been pointed out that deceased father of the plaintiff had certain debts and in oder to meet the financial liabilities he had alienated the property. It is also contended that suit presented by the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Sisters of the plaintiffs are also not joined in the suit who are entitled to have shares in the property. After considering the contentions raised by the respective parties, the trial court was not satisfied as regards merit of claim raised by plaintiff and dismissed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 22.2.1999. Said judgment and decree passed by the trial court was challenged before the first Adhoc Additional District Judge Biloli in RCA No.18/1999. The appellate court after hearing the appeal was pleased to dismiss the same on 03.09.2002. 3. I have heard the arguments advanced by Shri Padmakar Deshpande counsel appearing for appellant and Smt. Chincholikar counsel appearing for respondents. I have perused both the the judgments. First appellate Court has recorded the findings that it has not been proved by the plaintiff that their father was addicted to bad voices and in order to fulfill his immoral needs he has alienated the ancestral property. It has also been recorded by the first appellate court that the defendants have discharged the burden caste on them and have established that the alienation effected by the father of the plaintiff is for legal necessity. It has further been recorded that after alienating the ancestral property, the father of the plaintiffs has purchased some agricultural properties at village Takli. It has also been recorded by the first appellate court that father of the plaintiff had incurred debt and in order to 3 meet the financial liability he had alienated the property. It has also been observed by the courts below that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. I am of the opinion that concurrent findings recorded by the courts below do not requires any interference. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the matter. The appeal therefore stands dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil applications do not survive and therefore stands disposed off. ( R.M.BORDE, J. ) ..... aaa/1529.04