1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 862 OF 2009 Udhav S/o Mahadev Jadhavar & another ... Appellants. Versus Sushilabai W/o Yadavrao Ghuge & others ... Respondents. -------- Shri. N.B. Jadhav, Advocate for the appellants. -------- CORAM: V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE: 5th DECEMBER, 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The appellants are original defendant Nos. 2 & 3 who claim to have purchased the suit land from original defendant No. 1. The mother and younger brothers of the defendant No. 1 filed suit alleging that the sale transactions dated 07-06-1996, 18-07-1996, and 30-07-1996 were not binding on their rights. They contended that the 2 defendant No. 1 was addicted to vices of liquor drinking and executed the sale deeds to satisfy his lust. They further submitted that the defendant No. 1 was not manager of their family and he had no right to sale those properties and the amount was also not paid for legal necessities of the joint Hindu family. They further alleged that the defendant No. 1 was minor at the relevant time, therefore, had no competency to alienate the suit property. They contended that no consideration was paid to the defendant No. 1. Consequently, they urged for relief of partition and separate possession along with declaration that the sale-deeds were not binding on them. The suit came to be decreed and the appeal preferred by the appellants (Original Defendant Nos. 2 & 3) came to be dismissed. It may be noticed that though the Trial Court and First Appellate court gave finding that the defendant No. 1 is major at the relevant time and was not subjected any fraud by the appellants, yet there is categorical finding that the 3 appellants (purchasers) failed to prove existence of legal necessity. It appears that original defendant No. 1 was aged about 18 years at the relevant time. It appears from the concurrent findings that the appellants did not make any reasonable inquiry regarding existence of the legal necessity. The contention of the appellants was therefore, rejected by both the Courts below. Under the circumstances, there appears no substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal. 3) In view of “ Gurudev Kaur & others V/s. Kaki & others “ (AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1975) this second Appeal is dismissed, as not maintainable. 4) In view of order passed in Second Appeal, Civil Application Nos. 4369 of 2009 & Civil Application No. 5418 of 2009 are disposed of accordingly. (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.) SDM/SA862.09 4 5