1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.518 OF 2009 1 Datta s/o Nivruti Haake, age: 27 years, Occ: Private service, R/o Chavanwadi, U/V Talwada, Tal. Georai, now at Pune. 2 Pandit s/o Niverti Haake, age: 25 years, Occ: and R/o as above. 3 Kanta Niverti Haake, age: 21 years, Occ: and R/o as above. 4 Radhabai w/o Niverti Haake, age: 50 years, Occ: Household, R/o as above. 5 Kacharabai w/o Bhanudas Yamgar, age: 23 years, Occ: & R/o as above. Applicant Versus 1 Eknath s/o Gundiba Haake (Dismissed as per Court’s order dated 25.04.2008) 2 Rajendra s/o Bhaginath Sonwane, age: 23 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Chavanwadi, U/V Talwada, Tal. Georai, District Beed. 3 Ramesh s/o Bhaginath Sonwane, age: 21 years, Occ: Agril. (student), R/o as above. 2 4 Harnabai w/o Bhaginath Sonwane, age: 34 years, Occ: Household, R/o as above. Respondents Mr.V.C.Misal, advocate for appellants. Mr.M.S.Karad, advocate holding for Mr.S.S.Thombre, advocate for Respondents No.2 to 4. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 15 th October, 2009. P.C.: 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiffs raising exception to the judgment and decree passed by II Additional District Judge, Beed, on 28.08.1996 in Regular Civil Appeal No.243/1989, thereby modifying the judgment and decree passed by trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.403/1984. 2 Plaintiffs instituted suit claiming partition and separate possession of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, one Gundiba had two sons – Nivrutti and Eknath. Plaintiffs are successors of Nivrutti, whereas, Eknath is defendant no.1. On demise of Gundiba, property devolved upon his two sons. However, defendant no.1 Eknath alienated land to the extent of 7 acres and 28 gunthas in favour of defendants no.2 to 4. Plaintiffs, thus, claim that they are entitled to have ½ share in the property and as such they are entitled to partition and separate possession. 3 3 Defendants, in spite service, did not appear and suit proceeded ex parte against them. 4 The trial Court, granted decree in favour of the plaintiffs holding them entitled to have ½ share in the property. It is also declared that sale transaction effected on 14.10.1981 in favour of defendants no.2 to 4 by defendant no.1 is null and void and not binding upon the share of plaintiffs. 5 An appeal was preferred by Defendants no.2 to 4 raising exception to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Appeal came to be allowed partly. Decree passed by the trial Court holding the plaintiffs entitled to have ½ share in the property is maintained. However, the first appellate Court has declared the sale effected by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants no.2 to 4 as null and void to the extent of ½ share to which plaintiffs are entitled to. Thus, sale effected by defendant no.1 would bind him to the extent of ½ share to which he is entitled to. 6 I have perused the judgments delivered by both the Courts below. The view adopted by the Courts below is reasonable. The modification directed by the first appellate Court in respect of sale deed 4 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants no.2 to 4 is legal and proper. The sale effected by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants no.2 to 4 will definitely bind him to the extent of share to which he is entitled to, whereas, same would not bind the plaintiffs in respect of share accruable to them. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 7 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa51809