The purchaser must prove the legal necessity for the transaction, and it is not necessary for the purchaser to show that every bit of the consideration was actually applied for meeting the family necessity.

JUDGMENT

V.V.KANKANWADI,J. - Present appeal has been filed by the original defendant No.4 challenging the concurrent Judgment and decree. Present respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff who had filed Regular Civil Suit No.106 of 1077 before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kallam District Osmanabad, for declaration, partition and possession. The said suit came to be decreed on 31/01/1983. It was declared that the plaintiff has 1/4th share in the suit lands and the mango trees. It was the further decree that the sale deed effected by defendant No.1 on 11-05-1976 in favour of defendant No.4 stood cancelled to the extent of 1/4th share of the plaintiff. The separation of the share was directed to be effected through Collector. The said Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was challenged by defendant No.4/present appellant by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.105 of 1983 and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 28-04- 1993 by learned Additional District Judge, Osmanabad. Hence, this second appeal.

2. This Court admitted the second appeal on 11/09/2006 by framing following substantial question of law :-

"Whether the present appellant has proved that the property was sold to him for legal necessity. "

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. V. D. Salunke instructed by Mr. R. A. Deshmukh for appellants, learned Advocate Mr. S. S. Choudhary for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi for respondent No.4.

4. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellants that both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence property and failed to consider the contents of the documents which itself indicate the legal necessity. It is not in dispute that defendant No.1 who is the father of plaintiff executed sale deed on 11-05-1976 in respect of land Gut Nos.714 and 719 in favour of defendant No.4. Though there are other two suit lands, but we are not concerned with the same as defendant No.4/present appellant was concerned only with the above said two lands which were sold to him. As per the plaintiff, defendant No.1 was addicted to vices and he had unauthorizedly and illegally sold above said two suit lands without any legal necessity to defendant No.4 and, therefore, the said sale deed is not binding on him. It was stated that the family neither was indebted to anybody nor loan was raised requiring any amount for mitigating the said loan. It was also pleaded that the actual value of the suit lands are more than it has been shown in the sale deed, but the plaintiff had not adduced any proper evidence to show that what was the real value of the suit land. Some statement made by the witnesses that irrigated land in their village would fetch a certain amount, will not amount to evidence in respect of inadequacy of consideration. In fact, the suit was filed in collusion between the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 to give a go bye to rights derived by defendant No.4. This can be seen from the fact that intentionally defendants No.1 to 3 remained absent and the suit proceeded exparte against them. This shows that they had the collusive interest with plaintiff as against defendant No.4. When it was contended by the plaintiff that the suit lands were not sold to defendant No.4 for real necessity; defendant No.4 has led evidence to support the contention that there was in fact legal necessity. Payment of consideration has not been challenged by the father defendant No.1. Plaintiff cannot say that father has not received consideration because at this stage he is the rival to his father. Even the sale deeds have not been challenged on the ground of fraud etc. by the executant i.e. the father defendant No.1. Defendant No.4 examined two more witnesses out of which one was the attesting witness and another is the person who had given hand loan to defendant No.1. Both of them have supported the story put forward by defendant No.4. Further, in his cross-examination, plaintiff himself and plaintiff 's witnesses have admitted that