vsa 1 SA843_2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 843 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1565 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 666 OF 2009 Shri Shankar Ganpati Nakile & Ors. ).. Appellants Versus Shri Balasaheb @ Malharrao Ganapati Bhosale & Ors. ).. Respondents Shri Mahesh Rawool, i/b. P.B. Shah, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri A.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 7th DECEMBER, 2011. P. C. Heard the Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants. The Appellants are the legal representatives of the original Defendants nos. 3 and 4. The legal representative of Defendant no. 3 and 4 (i.e. the present Appellants) preferred Second Appeal no. 516/2008 in this Court against the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Court in Civil Appeal No. 474 of 1995 which arose out of another suit filed by the Respondents. 2. In the present Second Appeal, the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for challenging the sale deed dated 28th March, 1977 executed by their father in favour of the Defendant nos. 3 and 4, who are the Appellants. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court has passed a decree holding that the alienation of the suit property, which was a joint Hindu family property was made without any legal necessity. vsa 2 SA843_2007 Hence, it was held that the sale will bind only the father's share and accordingly, a decree for partition was passed. The Appellate Court disbelieved the case of the Appellants that the sale was for legal necessity of meeting the marriage expenses of one Shobha, the sister of Plaintiffs, which was solemnized on 27th May, 1979. 3. The Second Appeal No. 516 of 2008 arose out of another suit filed by the same Plaintiffs for challenging alienation dated 18th July, 1975 made by their father. Even in the said case, the Appellate Court held that the sale deed was not executed for legal necessity. One of the necessity pleaded was of meeting the expenses of marriage of the said Shobha. This Court has upheld the said finding by dismissing the Second Appeal. 4. No substantial question of law arises. The Appeal is dismissed. 2. In view of the disposal of Appeal, Civil Application No. 666 of 2009 and Civil Application No. 1565 of 2007 do not survive. Hence, the same are disposed of accordingly. (A.S. OKA, J)