1 29. Judg..odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.414 OF 2019 Ghannila Sadhuji Naranje Vs. Sadhu s/o Chahadeo Naranje and ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. K. S. Agrawal, Advocate h/f. Mr. S. W. Sambre, Advocate for appellant. Mr. J. R. Kidilay, Advocate for respondent No.8. CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 13.01.2026. . The present Second Appeal arises out of a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the present appellant, who is the son of original defendant No.1 and brother of original defendant Nos.2 to 7. The original defendant No.8 had purchased the suit property from defendant No.1. The appellant (plaintiff’s son) has challenged the said alienation on the ground that the suit property was ancestral property which was received by defendant No.1 (father) from his grand-father, namely Chahadeo. 2. The defendant Nos.1 to 7 filed their written statement opposing the suit. It is contended that the suit property was separate property of defendant No.1/father, who had sold the same to defendant No.8 for legal necessity. Defendant No.8 filed written statement claiming to be a bona fide purchaser for value. 2 29. Judg..odt 3. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the suit property was Joint Hindu Family Property. The learned Trial Court has held that although it is the case of plaintiff that the suit property was purchased by defendant No.1 from the income of Joint Hindu Family Properties, he could not substantiate the said contention. The learned Trial Court also recorded finding that the evidence on record was not sufficient to hold that the properties in the hands of plaintiff’s grandfather were held by him as Joint Hindu Family Property. The learned Court also found that the plaintiff could not establish identity of the property and was completely confused with respect to the same. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 4. The plaintiff filed appeal challenging the said decree. The learned First Appellate Court has dealt with the matter differently. The learned First Appellate Court has considered the evidence with respect to the need of the family to sell the suit property. The learned First Appellate Court has referred to the evidence of respondent No.1, where he stated that he had obtained a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- for the marriages of his children. The fact that loan was obtained by defendant No.1/father was also accepted by the plaintiff/appellant in his evidence. The learned First Appellate Court, therefore, held that defendant No.1/father, being karta of 3 29. Judg..odt the family, was competent to sell the suit property for legal necessity which was duly proved. 5. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court with respect to the nature of the property and more particularly the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court with respect to the need for selling the suit property, are findings of fact recorded on proper appreciation of evidence. The finding with respect to legal necessity is based on the admission of plaintiff and evidence of defendant No.1/father. The findings are proper and do not warrant any interference. 6. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference with the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned Court dismissing the suit. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) Tanmay...