( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 467 OF 2004 Mahadeo s/o. Ashok Mahadak & anr. .. Appellants Versus Shivaji s/o. Ganpati Shinde & anr. .. Respondents Shri N.P. Patil (Jamalpurkar), Advocate for the appellants. Shri Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 07.07.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri N.P. Patil (Jamalpurkar) for the appellants and Adv. Shri Vivek Bhavthankar for the respondents. This Second Appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs whose suit for declaration that sale-deed dated ( 2 ) 21.07.2001 in respect of Block No.142 admeasuring 40 R land from village Takli (Bardapur) was not for legal necessity and it was not binding on them. 2. The Trial Court has considered the evidence and has come to the conclusion in para 24 and 25 of his judgment that there was evidence laid down by present respondent No.1 to show that respondent No.2 Ashok who was father of appellant No.1 and husband of appellant No.2 was suffering from T.B. and was found H.I.V. positive and that the sale-deed was for meeting medical expenses. However, it appears that unnecessarily the Trial Court went into question of whether infection of H.I.V. positive was due to womanization or otherwise and ultimately came to the conclusion that the sale was not for legal necessity. He also held that there was no mention of said illnesses in the sale-deed. 3. On the other hand the First Appellate Court has considered the entire evidence including that of Dr. Pradeep Ugile-D.W.3 examined by respondent No.1 to prove that respondent No.2 Ashok was suffering from t uberculosis and was found H.I.V. positive and was under his treatment for ( 3 ) about two years. The learned advocate for the parties have taken me through the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The learned advocate for the respondents Shri Bhavthankar drew my attention to the statement of respondent No.2-Ashok examined at Exh.44, in which he stated that in about 1999 he was suffering from T.B. and later on he was also suffering from H.I.V. positive; he spent Rs. 1 lakh on his treatment; in March, 2000, appellant No.2 took away appellant No.1 to her parental house and did not come back. Respondent No.2 had no any source of income, so he sold one acre land for Rs.80,000/-. It was jirayat land. The record also shows that he had another land, which is Gat No.266. So, it is not that the entire property was sold. While answering issue No.3, the Trial Court has also held that the portion of land sold could be easily adjusted to the share of respondent No.2 in the ancestral land. In cross-examination Ashok even said that he also repaid loan of Rs.10,000/- out of Rs.80,000/- received as consideration for the sale-deed. 4. Considering the circumstances of the case and evidence, particularly regarding legal necessity, it cannot ( 4 ) be said that the judgment of the First Appellate Court suffers from infirmity and under the circumstances, this appeal cannot be admitted. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa467.04