1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH SECOND APPEAL NO. 282 OF 2004 1. Vijay s/o. Madhavrao Naik, age 32 years, occ. agriculture, 2. Hemant s/o. Madhavrao Naik, age 31 years, occ. agril., 3. Atul @ Yeshwant s/o. Madhavrao Naik, age 26 years, occ. agricultural, 4. Sau. Suman w/o. Madhavrao Naik, occ. 57 years, occ. household, All residents of Nilanga, district Latur. - - Appellants [ Orig. plaintiffs ] versus 1. Ramkishan s/o. Gyandeo Tare, age 50 years, occ. agriculture, R/o. Jevari, taluka NIlanga. 2. Godawaribai w/o. Govindrao Naik, age 67 years, occ. household, 3. Vasant s/o. Govindrao Naik, age 52 years, occ. service, 4. Subhash s/o. Govindrao Naik, age 47 years, occ. business, 5. Deelip s/o. Govindrao Naik, age 40 years, occ. business, 2 6. Shriram s/o. Govindrao Naik, age 37 years, occ. service, All residents of Nilanga, dist. Latur. 7. Sau. Shalinibai w/o. Laxmikantrao Deshmukh, age 36 years, Occu. household, R/o. SIllod, C/o. J.M. F.C., Sillod, District Aurangabad. Respondent No.7 dismissed as per Addl. Registrar's Order dated 5-10-1994 in Civil Application No. 3126 of 1993. 8. Madhavrao s/o. Yeshwantrao Naik, age 65 years, occu. service, R/o. Nilanga, taluka Nilanga, district Latur. - - - Respondents [ Orig. defendants ] Shri S. V. Natu, Advocate for appellants. Shri S. G. Bobade, Advocate holding for Shri S. S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM: N. D. DESHPANDE, J. Dated : 10th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. Heard Shri S. V. Natu, Advocate for the appellants. 2. Appellants, who are the original plaintiffs, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 251 of 1981 for declaration that the sale transaction between defendant No.1 Ramkrishna Tare and deceased Govindrao Naik, his uncle, in respect of suit land survey No. 25 to 3 the extent of 11 acres 17 gunthas of land of northern side situated at village Jevri. Nilanga vide registered sale deed dated 7-9-1960 was not binding on them and also defendant No.2 their father to the extent of their half undivided share in it and further for getting share back mainly of defendant No.1. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land which was sold to the defendant No.1 by deceased Govindrao, who was then Karta of the family, was part and parcel of their joint family property in which defendant No.8 Madhavrao s/o. Yeshwantrao Naik, father of plaintiffs Nos.1, 2 and 3 and their mother plaintiff No.4 were entitled to the extent of undivided half share. The said transaction was effected behind their back and without any legal necessity and, therefore, not binding on them at the relevant time when the sale deed was executed. Plaintiff No.1 was minor and plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 were born after the said transaction. According to the plaintiffs, the cause of action arose on 7-9-1960. However, the suit came to be filed within three years from the date of attaining the majority by plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2. At the time of filing of the suit, vendor Govindrao, then Karta of the family, was no more. His legal heirs were shown as formal defendants Nos.2 to 7. The suit is mainly directed against the defendant No.1 Vendee. The other 4 defendants are formal parties. 3. Main contesting defendant No.1 - Vendee filed his written statement that transaction was for a consideration of Rs.9000/- and he obtained regular registered sale deed from Govindrao, brother of defendant No.8 being Karta of the family and, therefore, it is binding on all the parties who are ascertaining their undivided joint share in the property. It is categorically stated that for maintaining the family, Govindrao was in need of money and, therefore, for legal necessity, suit land was sold to him. As such, the defendant No.1 urged for restoration of the suit. 4. In the trial Court, the only issue framed in favour of defendant No.1 was - "5. Does the defendant no.1 prove that the property purchased by him from the deceased Govindrao Naik as he being manager of the joint family property and full knowledge that the amount was required to defendants No.2 to 7 in order to meet the family expenses? " This issue was answered in favour of defendant No.1. 5 Consequently, the suit came to be dismissed. There is long discussion made stating all evidence relevant as to how and in what circumstances, the sale deed was executed. Deceased Govindrao was in need of Rs.8,000/- to pay the decretal amount of Hyderabad Court. The law about the legal necessity is also discussed in para 16 of the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court. Thus, the first appeal was preferred by the present appellant before the Court of Additional District Judge, Latur. There is also concurrent finding on the point of legal necessity and, therefore, appeal was dismissed. 5. I have perused the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court. The appellate Court also held that the suit transaction was entered for a legal necessity by re-appreciating the evidence on that point. Upon consideration of the record and after hearing submissions of Shri Natu, learned Counsel for the appellants, in my opinion, there is concurrent finding of fact about the legal necessity and that would not in any way require reconsideration. 6. Except this, no substantial question of law could be raised 6 and argued. Consequently, this appeal at the stage of admission stands summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) pnk/sa28204