1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.839 OF 2008. Sakhubai W/o Vithalrao Kalyankar ... Appellant. Versus Madhav S/o Pandit Jadhav and others ... Respondents ... Mr. H.I.Pathan, advocate holding for Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, advocate for the appellant. Mr.G.R.Ingole, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 04.11.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The Second Appeal is preferred against judgment rendered by the first appellate Court in Appeal bearing RCA No.29/2004. The Respondents had filed suit (RCS No.11/2000) for partition and 2 separate possession in respect of agricultural lands bearing Gat No.77 to the extent of 34 Ares, Gat No.47 to the extent of 8 Ares and Gat No.22 to the extent of 82 Ares as described in claim clause of the plaint. The trial Court dismissed the suit, whereas the first appellate Court decreed the same. The appellant is a purchaser in respect of the land bearing Gat No.77 to the extent of 34 Ares. 3. The only material issue involved in the suit was whether the said land was alienated to the appellant on account of legal necessity by Pandit Jadhav, who was the Manager of the Joint Hindu family of the Respondents. According to the appellant, said Pandit was suffering from illness and, therefore, required medical expenditure for which he alienated the land. The appellant failed to prove what kind of medical expenditure was incurred by the vendor. The appellant failed to prove the nature of illness and nexus between said illness and necessity to alienate the land in question by Pandit. It is well settled that burden to prove presence of 3 legal necessity is always on purchaser. Mere vague allegations that Pandit was required to incur certain medical expenditure would not be sufficient to infer presence of legal necessity. The first appellate Court has taken due care while directing that the land may be allotted to the share of the vendor i.e. said Pandit, who was defendant No.1 in the suit. Considering these aspects, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/sa83909