The burden of proof on the purchaser to establish legal necessity and benefit to the family influenced the court's decision in dismissing the suit.

JUDGMENT

Mangesh S. Patil, J. - have heard Mrs. Langhe, learned advocate for the appellant. None is present for the respondents.

1. The second appeal has been admitted by the order dated 29-07-1992 with following substantial question of law:

'i. Non consideration of all the issues arising out of plaintiff's pleading as taken into account by the trial court, while reversing the decision by the lower appellate Court raises a substantial question of law. Leave was also granted to add substantial questions of law, perhaps as contemplated under Section 100 (5). However, none have been furnished thereafter.'

2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the second appeal are as under:-

a] appellant No. 1-Narayan while he was barely couple years of age filed the suit through his natural guardian and mother who is arrayed herein as appellant No.2-Kantabai against one Gangadhar, the predecessor of respondent No.1 and his own father Bhaurao who is respondent No.2 interalia averring that the suit property agriculture land Gut No. 42, adm. 13-acres 5-Gunthas of village Malewadi, Tq. Jalna was the ancestral and joint family property. Bhaurao was congenital idiot. He was suffering from fits of insanity. Taking advantage of his such condition Gangadhar-the original defendant got executed a sale deed of the suit property on 04-09-1981 without there being any legal necessity. It was not even for the benefit of minor son Narayan. No consideration was paid. Whatever was mentioned as consideration was meagre. The market price was more than Rs. 20,000/-. Gangadhar played mischief by pretending that his land Gut No. 14, admeasuring 3-acres 16-Gunthe was sold to Bhaurao by a separate sale deed on the same date for Rs.7,000/- when in fact the property was worth barely Rs.1,000/-. The suit property was superior than the property of Gangadhar Gut No. 14. By questioning the legality of the sale deed on all these grounds, Narayan claimed possession of the entire suit property and perpetual injunction restraining Gangadhar from alienating it.

b] Gangadhar contested the suit by his written statement. He admitted the relation between Narayan, Kantabai and Bhaurao. He also admitted about having purchased the suit property for consideration mentioned in the sale deed and sold his own land Gut No. 14 to Bhaurao on the same date. He, however, denied rest of the contentions. He contended that Bhaurao was not idiot or lunatic. He was shrewd and a person who could manage to file a collusive suit. He was indebted to a bank as also individuals and was in need of money. To pay them off he had to sell the suit property. Even Bhaurao wanted to purchase land of superior quality. While disposing of the suit property on the very same day, he purchased his (Gangadhar's) land for valuable consideration. His land is superior to that of Bhaurao. Therefore, he contended that Bhaurao had sold the suit property to meet legal necessity of the joint family and besides the transaction was for the benefit of the family.

c] Bhaurao filed written statement admitting the claim.

d] With such pleadings the parties went to trial. The trial court concluded that there was neither any legal necessity nor was sale for the benefit of the family. However, it also held that Bhaurao was not idiot or lunatic and was not incapable of selling suit property. In view of such conclusion the trial court decreed the suit and holding that sale was not binding on Narayan, directed possession of 2/3rd share of the suit property to be delivered to him and also granted perpetual injunction as prayed for.

e] Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, Gangadhar preferred an appeal before the District Court by arraying Narayan, Kantabai and Bhaurao as respondents. By the judgment and order under challenge the appeal has been allowed, the judgment and order of the trial court has been quashed and set aside and the suit has been dismissed.

f. The lower appellate court has concurred with the conclusion of the