1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 1473 OF 2004 Nawalsingh S/o Jagram Pawar & others .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Champabai Babu Chavan & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri Vivek Dhage, Advocate for the appellants Shri P.F. Patni, Advocate for respondent CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 24th November, 2010. PER COURT : This is defendant’s Second Appeal. The Plaintiff had filed a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed executed by Patlabai in favour of the present appellant and for partition and separate possession. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The Defendant preferred an appeal, the Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. The defendant has assailed the said Judgment and Decree, in the present Second 2 Appeal. 2. Shri Dhage, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that already partition had taken place and land was mutated in the name of Patalabai, which substantiates the contentions of the present appellant. He further submitted that as the property was standing in the name of Patalabai in the relevant revenue records, the defendant would get the benefit of purchase of the property from ostensible owner. The learned Counsel further contended that the sale was for legal necessity, in certain circumstances the mother has got the right to sale the property. The Court below have not properly considered this aspect. 3. Per contra, Shri Patni, learned Counsel for the original plaintiff submitted that both the Courts have concurrently held that the sale was not for legal necessity, no partition had taken place and in the limited jurisdiction under Section 100, the said appreciation of evidence cannot be gone into. 3 4. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the Judgments delivered by the Courts below. The Courts below have discussed that the sale-deed executed by Patalabai was not for legal necessity, the grounds raised for legal necessity i.e. the marriage of the daughters is proved to be incorrect, as the marriage of the daughters had already taken place prior to the execution. The sale-deed is also held to be without consideration. The sale-deed is said to be executed on 2nd April, 1996 and 6th April, 1996 and Patalabai died on 14th April, 1996, Court below have taken into consideration all these aspects on evidence on record. It is not a case of perverse appreciation of evidence. 5. In the light of the same, no substantial question of law arises. As such, Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of Second 4 Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and same is also disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM* 1473.04SA/241110