( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 157 OF 2005 Santosh s/o. Vithalrao Hade and ors. .. Appellants Versus Vithal s/o. Eknathrao Hade and ors. .. Respondents Shri N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 08.07.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri N.L. Jadhav for the appellants. This is an appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs being aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.79 of 1990 by 6th Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed on 23.07.1993, which judgment is further confirmed by the IV Additional District Judge, ( 2 ) Beed, while deciding Regular Civil Appeal No.237 of 1993 on 16.02.2000. It is case of the present appellants that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are sons and appellant No.3 is wife of respondent No.1 Vithal. Admittedly, respondent No.1 Vithal had executed a registered sale- deed on 20.09.1983 for Rs.11000/- in respect of his landed properties situated at village Kalsambar. 2. It is stated that the sale-deed is not binding on appellant Nos. 1 and 2 as same was not for legal necessity or benefit of estate. The Trial Court held that same was for legal necessity. Respondent No.2 Fakirrao had made necessary enquiries. He was bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The learned advocate for the appellants Shri Jadhav has taken me through the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Trial Court has held that it has come in the evidence that after respondent No.1 Vithal who was original defendant No.1 had retired from Army service, he had no other source of income except family land and pension of Rs.600/-. That income was not sufficient. He had another land situated at Manubai Javla. ( 3 ) Therefore, Vithal wanted to develop land at Manubai Javla and also migrate to Beed for earning livelihood and therefore sold the suit land. It is held that the transaction was for benefit of estate. It is brought on record that Vithal wanted to sell the property for developing his land at another village which is more productive. Transaction was in the interest of family. So, considering the reasons given in para 10 and 11 by the Trial Court, it can be said that the Trial Court has given sufficient reasons for answering issue Nos. 3 and 4. The First Appellate Court has also considered various aspects. The First Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that there is no substance in the say of the appellant that respondent No.1 was addicted to vices and it was a tainted transaction. He also come to the conclusion that the sale was for legal necessity. Recitals in the sale-deed are also relied upon by both the Courts. 3. Considering the reasons given by both the Courts, this is not fit case where any substantial question of law arises. The conclusions are reasonable ( 4 ) and cannot be said to be perverse. Hence, this Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUL09/sa157.05