1 902sa611­11 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.611 OF 2011 Shivaji Krishna Pawar & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Ladu Yetala Pawar & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Machhindra Patil & Mr. Atul Katkar i/b. Mr. N. Y. Katkar for the appellants. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : DECEMBER 2, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Appellants are the original plaintiffs. The first appellant is the son of Krishna and the second appellant is the wife of Krishna. The case made out by the appellants is that the said Krishna executed a sale deed dated 9th July, 1970 in respect of the suit property in favour of the respondent which is illegal and void as it was without any consideration. The prayer in the suit was for partition of ½ share of the appellants. The second prayer was for declaration that the sale deed dated 9th July, 1970 was illegal and void. The suit was filed on 21st May, 1984. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court has confirmed the decree 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted 2 902sa611­11 that the Courts below have committed an error by ignoring that the respondents have not established legal necessity. He submitted that evidence on record shows that the legal necessity was not established. He submitted that the suit was filed after the appellants acquired the knowledge about the sale deed and, therefore, the bar of limitation will not apply. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the copy of the plaint tendered by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Perusal of the plaint shows that there is no specific averement that the sale transaction was not for legal necessity. The averement is that the sale deed was got fraudulently executed by the respondents and the sale deed was without any consideration. Thus, the specific plea is that sale deed is obtained by fraud and it is null and void. There is no challenge to the sale deed on the ground that the sale was not for legal necessity. Therefore, there was no burden on respondent prove that the sale was for legal necessity. 4. The sale deed in question was duly registered. Therefore, the suit filed after 14 years from the date of the sale deed was held as barred by the law of limitation, in view of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The said finding appears to be correct. No substantial question of law arises. No interference is called for in 3 902sa611­11 the concurrent decrees passed by the trial Courts below. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5. Civil Application No.834 of 2009 does not survive and the same is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)