1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 182 OF 2010 Sow. Usha Shriniwasrao Mudhalwaskar & others .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Ramesh S/o Digamberrao Pekam & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the appellants Shri K.B. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 24th November, 2010. PER COURT : This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. The Plaintiff had filed a suit for partition and separate possession and for declaration that the sale-deed executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is not binding on them. The Trial Court, partly decreed the suit to the extent of share of the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and held that the sale-deed 2 executed to be binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have assailed the Judgment and Decree in the present Second Appeal. 2. Shri Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Court below has not even framed the point for determination, regarding the legal necessity. According to the learned Counsel, the defendant No. 2 though was the Karta of the family, he did not have right to deal with the shares of the plaintiffs, even the defendant No. 1 has stated in his evidence that he was not aware of the marriage of Shruti for whom the said amount was required. According to Shri Katnershwarkar, it is a case of perverse appreciation of evidence and the burden lay on defendant No. 1 to prove legal necessity and same has not been discharged. 3. With the assistance of learned Counsel, I have gone through the Judgments delivered by both the Courts below. The Courts have concurrently come to the conclusion that the sale of the suit property was for legal necessity, in 3 as much as the property was attached in an execution of the decree, so also the marriage of the daughter was to be performed. Even the lower Appellate Court, while framing the point No. 1 for its determination has considered the aspect of legal necessity. The Court has also discussed evidence on the point for legal necessity. 4. In the light of the same, both the Courts have concurrently held that the sale was for legal necessity, it is settled position of law that the Karta of the family can alienate the property for legal necessity, no substantial question of law arises. As such, Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM* 182.10SA/241110