1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No. 187 of 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri S.V. Chandole, Advocate holding for Shri V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for appellants. Shri D.G. Nagode, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. Appeal is by original plaintiff whose suit for declaration that the sale deeds in favour of Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are not binding on him, is dismissed by the trial court and the said order is also confirmed by the first appellate court. 2 3. It is a part of record that by sale deeds at Exhibits 15 and 16, Defendant No. 1 who is father of appellants who sued through their mother), had sold agricultural lands to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Sale deed at Exhibit 15 is dated 17.6.1993 executed by Chandrakant-Defendant No. 1 (Respondent No.1) in favour of Respondent No.3-Defendant No. 3 Dhanu Rathod in respect of 60 R. land out of survey No.133 There is recital in the sale deed that Chandrakant received the amount for meeting his family necessities. Sale deed at Exhibit 16 dated 17.6.1997 is executed by Defendant No.1 Chandrakant in favour of Defendant No.4 Manohar in respect of land admeasuring 40 R. out of the remaining land of Gat No.133. There is specific recital in this sale deed that the consideration amount is 3 being utilized for purchasing other convenient land. 4. It is said that Respondent No.4 did not enter into the witness box but it is pointed out to me, by referring to paragraph 12 of the judgment of the District Court that Respondent No.3 has deposed for himself and on behalf of Respondent No.4. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are brothers. 5. It is also observed in paragraph 25 of its judgment by the District court that, in fact there is sale deed executed by one Bhutada in favour of Respondent No.1 for a consideration of Rs.40,000/= by which land at Latur was purchased. This shows that the money was utilised for the purpose for which sale was effected. So far as other land is concerned, Respondent No.3 has deposed that the land was sold as Defendant No.1 Chandrakant, who was 4 earlier residing at village Kolpa, had shifted with plaintiff and his wife for education of children to Latur and was unable to meet family expenses from out of the family income and was not having bad habits. Land was not sold at one stroke. Initially, land was sold in favour of Respondent No. 2 on 16.7.1986, then land was sold on 17.6.1993 vide Exhibit 15 and on third occasion land was sold vide sale deed Exh.16 dated 17.6.1997. 6. Both, the trial court as well as first appellate court,have considered the evidence on record in details and recording a concurrent finding that the sale deeds in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were for benefit of the estate andfor legal necessity of meeting necessary expenses.After considering the evidence on record, it does not appear that any perversity is committed by the courts below. No 5 substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. 7. Hence, second appeal dismissed at admission stage. Parties to bear their own costs. Date:13/07/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/sa187.09