1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.587 of 1991 Date of decision: 25/3/2010 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes. may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/587-91sa 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.587 OF 1991 1. Gurling s/o Bimanna Koli (Died), Through LRs. Ravindra s/o Gurling Koli, Age 10 years Minor, under guardian, r/o.Bhusni, Tq.Omerga, District Osmanabad. 2. Basannapa s/o Bhimanna Koli, Age 17 years, Minor, U/g of Laxmi w/o Bhimanna Koli, Appellant No.3. 3. Laxmibai w/o Bhimanna Koli, Age 42 years, Occu: Household, r/o Bhusani, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad. ...APPELLANTS (Original plaintiff) VERSUS 1. Bhimanna s/o Narsappa Koli, Age 46 years, Occu: Agriculture, r/o. Bhusani, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad. 2. Ram s/o Sayabanna Mudkanna, Age 46 years, Occu: Agril., r/o Murum, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad. 3. Machandra s/o Kashiba Gaikwad, Age 41 years, Occu: Agril., r/o Bhusani, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad. 3 4. Kallappa s/o Kashiram Kalhetti, Age 46 years, Occu. & r/o as above. 5. Shankar s/o Bhimu Yevle, since died abated vide Exh.28. ...RESPONDENTS (Original Defendants) ... Mr. K.J.Ghute Patil, Adv., for the appellant. ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE :25/3/2010 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, Counsel for the appellant. On 27.3.1992, without formulation of substantial question of law, the appeal is admitted. The dismissal of RCS No. 143/1978, by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Omerga, was tested in Regular Civil Appeal No.287/1983 before the second Additional District Judge, Osmanabad. However, he confirmed the decree and hence the Second Appeal. 2. The probable substantial question could be: 4 "Whether the sale of property by Respondent No.1 with Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 would not be binding on appellant for want of legal necessity." 3. The relationship between the appellant and the respondent no.1 is not in controversy. However, the transaction of respondent no.1 with respondent nos. 2 and 3 could not be said to be not binding upon the appellant under the pretext that respondent no.1 or the appellant are residing separately. 4. It was proved, the father, defendant no. 1, was not an addict. He had several sale transactions to discharge family obligations. He had, from sale proceeds, provenly paid debt of Cooperative Society. This was also supported by 7/12 Extract (Ex.5). Defendant no.2 purchased 3 Acres land on 25.6.1975. Defendant no.4 purchased 3 acres land on 27.6.1973. On 7.12.1967, Deft No.1 sold 4 Acres of land from southern side to Defendant No.5. He is no more. His legal representatives not brought on record. 5. Court also found, no declaration was sought for cancellation of sale deeds executed by father ( deft.no.1). They simply sought partition of entire land. 5 Second Appeal lacks merit, it is dismissed with Civil Application. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/587-91sa