1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO450 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1492 OF 2009 Narayan Dattatray Kore )..Appellant Vs. Raghunath Anandrao Jadhav & Ors. )..Respondents ­­­­ Ms.A.R.S.Baxi for the appellant. ­­­­ Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 20th January, 2010 PC 1 This is a Second Appeal filed by the original plaintiff against concurrent judgment and decrees of two lower courts dismissing his suit for partition of two agricultural lands. It is an admitted position that this gat number was sold by plaintiff’s brother by a registered sale deed dated 30.1.1984 to defendant no.1 in the said suit who is respondent no.1 in the present appeal. It is contended that substantial question of law raised is that there was no evidence pertaining to legal necessity. Both the courts had held that legal necessity was proved. It is seen that sale deed dated 30.1.1984 itself narrates the legal necessity which according to the document was that money was required for performing the marriages of the plaintiffs. The record further indicates that the vendor defendant no.3 who is the brother of the plaintiff chose not to file any written statement and did not participate in the suit proceedings. The record further indicates that defendant no.3 had earlier mortgaged 2 part of the suit property to defendant no.1 in the year 1971 and that transaction was also for legal necessity and was not challenged by the plaintiffs though all the plaintiffs and other children in the family were majors by the time respondent no.1 entered into 2nd sale deed in favour of defendant no.1. There being concurrent findings of fact relating to the legal necessity and in view of the aforesaid position, there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal and the same is rejected. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1492 OF 2009 1 As the main appeal is rejected, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3