IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.222 of 2007 1. Binod kumar 2. Pramod Kumar Both resident of village Basantpur, P.O. and P.S. Basantpur, District Siwan ……Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants. versus 1. Sarbjeet Singh, son of late Teju Singh 2. Surendra Singh, son of Sarbjeet Singh 3. Gajendra Singh, son of Sarbjeet Singh All are residents of village Manghari, Pargana Barai, P.O. Sughani, P.S. Bhaguapur, District Siwan. …Defendants 1st party-Respondent Ist Set-Respondents 1st Set. 4. Kishori Prasad, son of late Mahadeo Ram 5. Binoy Kumar, son of Kishori Prasad All residents of village Basantpur, P.O. +P.S. Basantpur Pargana, Barai, District Siwan. …Defendant 2nd Party-Respondent 2nd set-Respondent 2nd set. ……… For the appellants : M/s Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, R.S. Dwivedi, L.L. Pandey, R. K. Dubey and S.K. Dwivedi,Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Mukesh Kant, Advocate. …….. 12/ 05.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 277 of 1996, which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for declaration that the sale-deeds executed by their father Kishori Prasad (defendant no.4) in favour of defendant 1st party were fraudulent, without jurisdiction, without benefit to the estate and without any legal necessity and were, thus, void as well as for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said title suit was dismissed on contest by the 2 learned Ist Subordinate Judge, Siwan, vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2000. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.86 of 2000, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court IV, Siwan on contest vide his judgment and decree dated 28.01.2007. 5. After considering the arguments of the parties and materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that that there were specific pleadings and evidence on behalf of the defendants- respondents that Kishori Prasad had executed the sale-deeds for the marriage of his daughter as he had five daughters, out of whom only two were married and also for maintaining the family as well as for payment of loan as due to non-payment of such loan he had also to be sent to jail. It was further proved by evidence that at the time of execution of the sale deeds in question, the sons of said Kishori Prasad, namely, the appellants were present. 6. So far non-mention of any legal necessity in the sale-deeds is concerned, the same will not act as detrimental to the claim of the defendants as they had specifically pleaded and proved the said facts in accordance with law and the said requirements were duly covered under section 243 of the Mulla Hindu Law for the purpose of alienation of the co-parcenery property for legal necessity by the Karta, who was also the father and had powers to alienate under sections 242 and 256 of the said Law. In the said 3 circumstances, the learned courts below were justified in coming to the said conclusion that the sale-deeds were executed by the father of the appellants for legal necessity of the family. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )