T.V. Nalawade, J.

1. Appeal is admitted. Notice, after admission, made returnable forthwith by consent of both the sides.

2. Heard both the sides for final disposal.

3. Regular Civil Suit No. 91 of 1984 was filed by present respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for relief of partition, declaration and perpetual injunction. It was filed in respect of agricultural lands bearing Block No. 41 (old No. 599) and 44, admeasuring 3 Hectares 61 Ares, situated at village Masalwadi, Tashil Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No. 1 is the wife of defendant No. 1 Appa and defendant No. 2 Smt. Suman is the concubine of defendant No. 1. It is contended that due to the relations of defendant No. 1 with defendant No. 2, there was dispute and then defendant No. 1 deserted plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 2 is son of plaintiff No. 1, born from defendant No. 1 and other plaintiffs are daughters of plaintiff No. 1 born from defendant No. 1. During the pendency of the matter, defendant No. 1 died and two sons born to defendant No. 2 from defendant No. 1, were brought on record as legal representatives of defendant No. 1. The other defendants are purchasers of some portion of the property from defendant No. 1.

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property is joint Hindu family property. It is contended that as the suit property is the ancestral property, plaintiff No. 1, plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 1 had 1/3rd share each in the suit property. It is contended that defendant No. 1 has sold some portion of suit property to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 under sale deeds dated 12th January, 1982 and 22nd March, 1984. It is contended that there was no need of selling the property and the said property was sold by defendant No. 1 to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 to satisfy his bad vices, there was no legal necessity. It is contended that these sale deeds are not binding on plaintiffs. Declaration to that effect is claimed. Relief of partition and separate possession was claimed by the plaintiffs.

6. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit. He contended that for payment of maintenance to plaintiff No. 1 and for his own medical expenses, he was required to sell the lands. It is his case that he has given some property to defendant No. 2 in lieu of her maintenance.

7. Defendant No. 2 contested the suit and she contended that she is the wife of defendant No. 1. It is her case that in lieu of maintenance defendant No. 1 has given half portion of the suit property to her. It is also her case that the suit is barred by limitation.

8. Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 contested the suit by contending that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, and the suit is barred by law of limitation. They contended that defendant No. 1 sold the property to them for the legal necessity and for value. It is their case that out of the sale proceeds defendant No. 1 purchased new property at Kuldharan, Tahsil Karjat.

9. The legal representatives of defendant No. 1 contested the matter. During pendency, defendant No. 5 also died but his legal representatives appeared in the suit. The other defendants have taken similar defence.

10. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, issues were framed by the trial Court. Both the sides gave evidence. The trial Court held that the property given to defendant No. 2 needs to be taken back from her as the property could not have been given by defendant No. 1. The trial Court gave the decree to set aside a sale deed executed in favour of defendants by defendant No. 1 and held that the sale deed dated 22nd March, 1984 is null and void. However, the trial Court did not give relief in respect of sale deed dated 12th January, 1982 and the suit is dismissed in respect of the said property. The trial Court gave 7/18th share to plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, each, in the land available for partition. 1/18th share is given to plaintiff Nos. 3 to 6.

11. The purchasers filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 160 of 2004 and defendant No. 2 Sumabai