JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.(Oral): - Civil Misc. No. 168-C of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. RSA No. 64 of 2012 1. Plaintiffs Mewa Singh and Tarlochan Singh having lost in both the courts below have filed this second appeal. 2. Plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 (respondents 1 and 2) are sons of Gurdial Singh (defendant 1 since deceased and represented by plaintiffs and defendants no. 2 and 3). Challenge in the suit is to sale deed dated 12.03.2004 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants 5 and 6 (respondents 4 and 5) who are sons of defendant No. 4 (respondent No. 3), alleging that the suit land was ancestral coparcenary property and was sold without consideration and legal necessity. 3. Defendants resisted the suit and pleaded that the suit land has been sold for valuable consideration and for legal necessity. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 06.08.2010 dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 29.08.2011. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the impugned sale was made without valuable consideration and legal necessity and is, therefore, not binding on the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 and has to be set aside as a whole including the share of defendant No. 1. Reliance in support of these contentions has been placed on various judgments namely Hardeo Rai Versus Sakuntala Devi and others, [2008(4) Law Herald (SC) 2526] : 2008(7) SCR 1 of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Suba Singh Versus Madan Singh (minor) through Gurnam Kaur his mother & others 2009(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 734, Bakshish Singh and another Versus Harbans Singh (Died) through Lrs 2009(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 629, Sital Singh Versus Jamna Bai & Ors. 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 0642 and Sardar Raghbir Singh Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax 1958 PLR 104 of this Court. 7. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions raised by counsel for the appellants but the same cannot be accepted. 8. Defendant No. 1 was owner of 106 marlas land out of which he sold about 23 marlas land only. The said sale is proved to be for necessity, as rightly held by both the courts below. 7. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions raised by counsel for the appellants but the same cannot be accepted. 8. Defendant No. 1 was owner of 106 marlas land out of which he sold about 23 marlas land only. The said sale is proved to be for necessity, as rightly held by both the courts below. Defendant No. 1 had kacha dilapidated house which collapsed and required reconstruction time and again. He, therefore, needed money for pucca construction of the said house. Defendant no. 1 was also 80/85 years old and had no source of income. He needed money for his maintenance. Wife of defendant no. 3 (son of defendant no. 1 vendor) had died and money was needed for his re-marriage. Defendant no. 3 was residing with defendant no. 1 during his life time. Money was also needed for settling defendant no. 3. Loan had also been taken by wife of defendant no. 1 and was required to be repaid. In these circumstances, sale of about 1/5th share only out of the total land is duly proved to be for legal necessity. It may be added that defendant no. 1 did not sell the entire land measuring 106 marlas but sold only 23 marlas out of it. Defendant no. 1 in his written statement also supported the case of the vendor that the sale was made for legal necessity as detailed hereinbefore. In view of the aforesaid, concurrent finding recorded by the courts below that the impugned sale was for consideration and legal necessity is fully justified by the evidence on record and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality nor it is based on misleading or misappropriation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference. On the contrary, said finding is the only reasonable finding that can be arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record. 9. In view of this finding of fact, judgments cited by counsel for the appellants do not help the appellants in any way. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------