Point of Law: It is now well settled principles in regard to powers under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure that when Courts below record its concurrent findings of facts based on appreciation of facts and evidences, such finding being concurrent in nature are generally not to be disturbed by High Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a Second Appeal preferred by the original plaintiff being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court rejecting the suit of the plaintiff.

2. It is the contention of the appellant-plaintiff that the lower Courts have committed serious error of facts and law in holding that the deceased had executed a sale deed at exhibit 34 for legal necessity. According to the appellant the lower Court, ought to have seen that the burden of showing that the sale deed was executed for legal necessity or that it was executed for payment of antecedent debts lay on the defendant and that the defendant has not laid any evidence on the point of existence of legal necessity justifying alienation of ancestral immovable property nor had he laid any evidence to show that exhibit 34 was executed by the Sendharam for the payment of his antecedent debts. It is also contended that though the Court has held that sale price was inadequate, instead of declaring the sale deed as not binding to the plaintiff, hold otherwise against the plaintiff. It is also contended that since there was no evidence on record to show that the ancestral immovable property was sold by the deceased for legal necessity or for antecedent debts, the suit of the plaintiff ought to have been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. It is also contended that both the Courts below have committed error of facts and law in dismissing the suit and therefore since there is substantial question of law involved regarding the adequacy of the consideration and the issue of legal necessity and or payment towards antecedent debts for execution of sale deed exhibit 34, by deciding the same, appeal may be allowed in favour of the plaintiff and suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law on 03.03.1998:-

“(i) Whether the lower Courts committed an error in holding that the sale deed exhibit 34 was for adequate consideration and for legal necessity of the family?”

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jenil Shah for the appellants and learned advocate Mr.Joshi for Ms.Archana Acharya for the respondents at length. Perused the records and proceedings of the Trial Courts and the impugned judgment of both the Courts below and the decisions cited at bar.

5. The plaintiff appellant has filed the suit against the defendants contending that the alleged sale deed entered into between his deceased father and defendant is not binding to him and it was not for any legal necessity of the family. It was also contended by the plaintiff that the deceased has no right to sold the property individually as the property in question is an ancestral property. It is also contended that he was adapted son of the deceased and therefore he has a right in the ancestral property. According to him, after the death of his father, when he received the notice from the defendant calling upon him, whether he is willing to purchase the suit property from the defendant, he came to know regarding the execution of the sale deed exhibit 34 entered into between his deceased father and the defendant. According to him, the alleged sale deed is not binding to him and the financial condition of his father was sound and there was no need to sell the said property for such a meager amount of just Rs.1500/- for a total land of 13 acres or more. He has submitted that as the defendant was serving as Talati Mantri and has an influence over his father, due to such influence he got executed the alleged sale deed in his favour which is not binding to the plaintiff. He has also submitted that there was no antecedent debt of his father and there was no need for his father to execute such sale deed. On all these grounds, he has prayed to decree the suit in his favour directing the defendant to hand over the possession of the property and for non-bindingness of the sale deed to him.

6. It appears that the suit ha