JUDGMENT : UMESH M. ADIGA, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of CPC, challenging the judgment and decree dated 28 th October 2009, passed in R.A.No.29/2001, on the file of Fast Track and Addl. District Judge, Holenarasipura, (for short `first Appellate Court'), which arose from the judgment and decree dated 19 th March 2001, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.,) Holenarasipura, (for short `trial Court') in O.S.No.22/1993. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. This litigation is pending for more than last three decades. Plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.22/1993, on 11.03.1993, seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties. The said suit was seriously contested by defendant No.3. Thereafter, the said suit was decreed by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 19.03.2001. The trial Court awarded 1/3 rd share in the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant Nos.2 to 8 filed Regular Appeal No.22/2001, before the first Appellate Court. 4. The first Appellate Court after hearing the arguments, reversed the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2001 passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Challenging the divergent findings of the trial Court, as well as first Appellate Court, plaintiffs have preferred this regular second appeal under Section 100 of CPC. 5. To dispose of this appeal, the brief facts of case of the parties before the trial Court are as under: It is the case of the plaintiffs that original propositus of the family was one S.K.Narasimhaiah and his wife was one Smt.Giriyamma. They were parents of plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 and 2. They had four daughters who are respondent Nos.8 to 11 in this appeal. Narasimhaiah inherited the properties from his ancestors and the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff of defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is the further case of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 that they were residing in Bengaluru and defendant No.2 was residing in Mysuru. 6. It is further contended that defendant No.2 started being very close to his father Narasimhaiah and it was learnt by the plaintiff that defendant No.2 created certain documents by misusing his closeness with his father. It is the further case of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 that they were residing in Bengaluru and defendant No.2 was residing in Mysuru. 6. It is further contended that defendant No.2 started being very close to his father Narasimhaiah and it was learnt by the plaintiff that defendant No.2 created certain documents by misusing his closeness with his father. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, creation of such document will not bind the rights of the plaintiff. 7. It is further contended that Narasimhaiah, father of the plaintiff had died five to six months prior to filing of the suit. Thereafter, plaintiff demanded for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties. The defendants refused to effect partition: Therefore, he was constrained to file the suit. The plaintiff also avered about pendency of a suit in O.S.No.23/2001 said to be filed the 2 nd defendant, seeking the relief of partition in respect of house property. It is also stated that the said suit pertains to different property and it would not affect the rights of the parties in the present suit. With these reasons, plaintiff prayed to decree the suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/3 rd share in the suit schedule properties. 8. The defendant Nos.3, 4 and 7 have filed common written statement. Defendant No.2 filed separate written statement. The defendant No.1 though appeared before the trial Court, has not filed any written statement. 9. The defendant No.2, who is the contesting defendant, has admitted the relationship between the parties. And his contention was that, after marriage, plaintiff and defendant No.1 were not visiting the native place and they had never taken care of their father. He also admitted that suit schedule properties were joint family properties and according to his contention, the said properties were sold long back and he also contended that plaintiff and defendant No.1 had executed registered Power of Attorney (Ex.D-1) in favour of their father for selling all the suit schedule properties. 10. He also admitted that suit schedule properties were joint family properties and according to his contention, the said properties were sold long back and he also contended that plaintiff and defendant No.1 had executed registered Power of Attorney (Ex.D-1) in favour of their father for selling all the suit schedule properties. 10. He further stated that the said Narasimhaiah on his behalf and on behalf of plaintiff and defendant No.1, as a Power of Attorney Holder, sold item Nos.1 to 3 of suit schedule properties in favour of his sons viz., C.Manohara and C.Manjunatha, who were minors at that point of time and document was executed in the name of minor guardian i.e., wife of defendant No.2 by name Smt.Susheelamma, by registered Sale Deed dated 12.08.1976. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 did not raise any objection to the said sale transaction until filing of the suit. They had knowledge about the said sale transaction and they have permitted to sell the properties by executing a registered Power of Attorney in favour of their father. There was no cause of action to file the suit and the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts before the trial Court. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs. Defendant Nos.3 and 7 have repeated the said contentions in their written statement and prayed to dismiss the suit. 11. From the rival contentions of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues : (1) Does the 2 nd defendant prove the execution of power of attorney dated 5.5.1975 by the plaintiff and 1 st defendant authorizing his father to sell the suit schedule properties? (2) Does he prove that by virtue of the power of attorney his father himself sold the suit properties to C.Manohara and C.Manjunatha on 12.8.1976? (3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration that he has 1/3 rd share in the suit properties? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/3 rd share? Additional Issue: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the said properties belonged to the joint family of himself and defendants 1 and 2 when the suit was filed? 12. The plaintiff to prove his case, examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P-1. (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/3 rd share? Additional Issue: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the said properties belonged to the joint family of himself and defendants 1 and 2 when the suit was filed? 12. The plaintiff to prove his case, examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P-1. The defendants examined five witnesses as DW-1 to DW-5 and got marked documents as per Exs.D-1 to D-11. 13. The learned trial Judge heard the arguments and on appreciating the pleadings and evidence led by both the parties, answered issue Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and additional issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.3 in the negative and by the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2001, decreed the suit and awarded 1/3 rd share in the plaint schedule properties in favour of appellants/plaintiff. 14. At the cost of repetition, as stated in the above paras, defendant Nos.2 to 8 have preferred R.A.No.29/2001 before the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court after hearing the arguments, raised the following points for determination : (1) Whether the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) by decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.22/1993, dated 19.03.2001 is justified? (2) Whether the judgment and decree need interference of this Court for modify, varied and to setting aside the judgment and decree by allowing this appeal as prayed for? (3) Whether the respondents No.3 to 6 are entitled for share as prayed for? (4) What Order? 15. On re-appreciation of the materials available on record, the first Appellate Court reversed the judgment and dismissed the suit. The said findings of the 1 st appellate Court have been challenged in the present appeal. 16. This Court while admitting the appeal on 26.02.2010, has framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: "(1) Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court in so far as the appellants not being represented under Ex.D-8? (2) Whether the first Appellant Court was justified in construing that Ex.D-8 was executed by the father of the appellants as their power of attorney holder, when the tenor of Ex.D-8 did not indicate that this was so?" 17. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. 18. (2) Whether the first Appellant Court was justified in construing that Ex.D-8 was executed by the father of the appellants as their power of attorney holder, when the tenor of Ex.D-8 did not indicate that this was so?" 17. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. 18. Most of the facts of the case at this juncture are not in dispute. The geneology of the family is not in dispute. Before the trial Court, the sisters of the plaintiff were not made as parties and the said defect was cured by impleading the sisters as respondent Nos.8 to 11 in the present appeal. They have not challenged the findings given by the trial Court or the first Appellate Court in the present appeal. 19. The suit schedule properties are joint family properties of Narasimhaiah and his three sons, are not in dispute. Though nothing was pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint, during the course of trial, plaintiff and defendant No.1 have not disputed the execution of Power of Attorney in favour of Narasimhaiah to sell the suit schedule properties. It is a registered Power of Attorney executed by them. 20. During the course of trial, plaintiff and defendant No.1 have also not disputed the Sale Deed executed by their father, as well as defendant No.2 in respect of item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties, bearing Survey No.37/2, 37/3 and 37/6, in favour of two minor sons of defendant No.2. They have not made out a case that they were unaware about the said sale transaction and the said Sale Deed was created by defendant No.2, by misusing his closeness with this father Narasimhaiah. In spite of being aware of these facts, plaintiff neither amended the pleadings nor incorporated further averments in the plaint nor even modified the reliefs sought in the plaint. 21. Prior to filing of the suit, plaintiff had issued a paper publication cautioning the public at large not to deal with the suit schedule properties since plaintiff had right over the same. Thereafter, the two sons of defendant No.2 i.e., defendant Nos.4 and 5, have sold the suit schedule properties under registered Sale Deed in favour of three persons, which is not in dispute. Thereafter, the two sons of defendant No.2 i.e., defendant Nos.4 and 5, have sold the suit schedule properties under registered Sale Deed in favour of three persons, which is not in dispute. The dispute is only in respect of the right of Narasimhaiah, as well as defendant No.2 to sell the suit schedule properties on behalf of plaintiff and defendant No.1. 22. It is the contention of the appellant (plaintiff and defendant No.1) that the said Sale Deed was not executed on their behalf by their father as a Power of Attorney Holder. It appears, the said contention is raised for the first time in this Regular Second Appeal and no such contention was taken before the trial Court or first Appellate Court. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, let us consider the substantial question of law framed by this Court. 23. Certain circumstances in this case are important to be kept in mind for disposal of the matter: Father of plaintiff No.1 and defendant Nos.1 and 2, by name Narasimhaiah, S/o Krishnaiah, was a political leader and President of Panchayath during his life time and he was not a rustic villager. Plaintiff was earlier working as a Teacher and at the time of retirement he was promoted as a Principal. Defendant No.1 was serving in Police department and retired as an Assistant Commissioner of Police. Defendant No.2 was working as an Assistant in Commercial Tax department and was working at Mysuru. Undisputedly, suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties. During the life time and just few months prior to filing of the suit, deceased Narasimhaiath, father of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2, was looking after the joint family properties as Karta. The plaintiff has not produced the copy of revenue records pertaining to the suit properties, especially item No.4 of the suit properties bearing Survey No.25/2, measuring 1 acre 17 guntas, to prove that it was belonging to the joint family. During the course of trial, it appears, both parties have not given much importance to the said property for the reasons best known to them. It is also not in dispute that plaintiff and defendant No.1 have executed registered Power of Attorney in favour of their father Narasimhaiah on 05.05.1975. The original Power of Attorney is produced at Ex.D-1. 24. During the course of trial, it appears, both parties have not given much importance to the said property for the reasons best known to them. It is also not in dispute that plaintiff and defendant No.1 have executed registered Power of Attorney in favour of their father Narasimhaiah on 05.05.1975. The original Power of Attorney is produced at Ex.D-1. 24. The seriously disputed Sale Deed was executed by Narasimhaiah and defendant No.2 in favour of minor children of defendant No.2, which is at Ex.D-8, dated 12 th August 1976, for a sale consideration of Rs.4,000/-. It is also mentioned in the said document that, to meet the marriage expenses of Narasimhaiah's daughter by name S.N.Pramila and to clear off the debt of the family, the said property was sold in favour of minor children of defendant No.2. 25. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellants in respect of substantial question of law is that the said document was not executed by Narasimhaiah for himself, as well as a Power of Attorney Holder of plaintiff and defendant No.1; When the same was not mentioned in the said document, the contention of defendant No.2 that the said property was sold by Narasimhaiah on behalf himself and plaintiff and defendant No.1 as well as joint family members, is not tenable; Therefore, the said Sale Deed is not binding to the rights of plaintiff and defendant No.1. 26. This contention was raised for the first time in the second appeal. In the pleadings of the plaintiff, it was not at all his case that the suit property was sold by Narasimhaiah for himself and therefore, it does not bind the rights of plaintiff and defendant No.1. There was no such an issue before the trial Court and no such contention was raised before the first Appellate Court. As per the provisions of CPC, the parties are not permitted to raise a new ground for the first time in a second appeal. 27. Even after defendant No.2 had filed the written statement disclosing the alienation of item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties to the children of defendant No.2, plaintiff did not amend the pleading to put forth the above said contention which is raised for the first time before this Court. 28. 27. Even after defendant No.2 had filed the written statement disclosing the alienation of item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties to the children of defendant No.2, plaintiff did not amend the pleading to put forth the above said contention which is raised for the first time before this Court. 28. It is true that Ex.D-8, was not executed by Narasimhaiah for himself, as well as a Power of Attorney Holder of plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is not in dispute that late Narasimhaiah was the karta of the joint family and he was supervising the joint family agricultural lands. Defendant No.2 has produced the Mortgage Deed, as well as Sale Deeds executed by the father of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2, in respect of some of the properties. The said sale transactions are also not disputed and Narasimhaiah executed the said Sale Deeds on behalf of joint family as a karta. His authority to execute the Sale Deeds was not under challenge. Similarly, Narasimhaiah had executed Ex.D8 as karta of the family along with defendant No.2. 29. In the cross-examination of PW-1, he admits that he has no grievance about the sale of properties by Narasimhaiah in favour of children of defendant No.2. His only grievance was sale of the land was without his consultation, since he was also interested to purchase the said property. PW-1 has also stated that his father was a good man and he was not squandering the family income for his individual benefit. Evidence of PW-1 reveals that said sale was not for immoral purpose. 30. Coincidently, Ex.D-8 was executed after execution of Ex.D-1 i.e., general Power of Attorney. At the time of execution of Ex.D-8, Narasimhaiah had authority to sell the property as a karta of joint family, as well as Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff and defendant No.1. Ex.D-1 is not only an authority given to Narasimhaiah to sell the properties, but, it is also the consent given by both plaintiff and defendant No.1 to sell the suit properties by their father Narasimhaiah. Thereby, Narasimhaiah sold the property on the above authority. 31. In Ex.D-8, reasons for sale of the properties is clearly mentioned by late Narasimhaiah and defendant No.2. In view of these reasons, late Narasimhaiah had a right and authority to sell the properties. Thereby, Narasimhaiah sold the property on the above authority. 31. In Ex.D-8, reasons for sale of the properties is clearly mentioned by late Narasimhaiah and defendant No.2. In view of these reasons, late Narasimhaiah had a right and authority to sell the properties. Merely because the recitals of Ex.D-8, does not mention that it was executed by Narasimhaiah on his behalf, as well as on behalf of the Power of Attorney executed by plaintiff and defendant No.1, the same does not make any difference. Thus, it binds the rights of both plaintiff and defendant No.1. 32. In the grounds of appeal, it was contended regarding item No.4 of the suit properties. However, during the course of arguments, both sides have not argued in this regard. There are no materials to prove that as on the date of the suit, it was a joint family property. In the absence of necessary materials, the trial Court has not considered that item No.4 of the suit property was a joint family property. 33. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence produced by defendant No.2. It decreed the suit only the basis of Ex.P-1 i.e., paper publication issued by the plaintiff alerting the public at large, not to purchase the suit item Nos.1 to 3 properties from defendant No.2 or his children since it was a joint family property. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court was erroneous. 34. The first Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, held that the suit item Nos.1 to 3 were sold by father of plaintiff and defendant No.2 for legal and family necessity and it binds the rights of the plaintiff. Therefore, as on the date of the suit, there were no joint family properties for effecting partition. Hence, dismissed the suit. The said findings does not call for any interference. 35. It was repeatedly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that, in case of sale of property by karta for the legal necessity, it is very much necessary for the purchaser to prove that the property was sold for legal necessity and family benefit and merely the recitals in the Sale Deed are not sufficient to believe it. 36. At the cost of repetition, as stated above, PW-1 in his cross-examination admits that he had no grievance against his father who sold the suit property. 36. At the cost of repetition, as stated above, PW-1 in his cross-examination admits that he had no grievance against his father who sold the suit property. Ex.D-8 discloses that to perform the marriage of one of a daughter of Narasimhaiah by name S.N.Pramila and also to clear-off the debt of the family, late Narasimhaiah sold the suit property along with defendant No.2. The reasons assigned in Ex.D-8 is reliable and believable. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 have not led any rebuttal evidence to disprove it. Moreover, plaintiff and defendant No.1 were majors and took their respective work at Bengaluru. Defendant No.2 was also major and is serving in the Commercial Tax department. If a karta of a family intended to sell the property belonging to minor, in that event, burden will be on the purchaser to ascertain the family and legal necessity to sell the property. In this case undisputedly all the sons of Narasimhaiah were majors and consented to alienat the property; they knew that father was intended to sell the property and for that purpose, both of them had executed G.P.A in his favour. Therefore, the said contention also does not help the appellant/plaintiff. 37. Ex.D-8 was executed during the year 1976. The suit was filed on 11.03.1993. Over a period of ten years, plaintiff and defendant No.1 never challenged the said Sale Deed. It is not their contention that they were totally unaware about the said transaction. As stated above, even after disclosing this fact in the written statement by defendant No.2, the plaintiff has neither amended the pleading nor modified the relief. Till this day, the said document is not challenged. It is also not the prayer of the plaintiff that the said Sale Deed is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has not at all filed written statement before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, they cannot raise new contention in the second appeal, which was not at all taken before the trial Court or the first Appellate Court. It appears, deliberately the said facts were not pleaded just to overcome the point of Limitation Act. 38. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.R. Vinoda vs. M.S. Susheelamma (D) by LRs. It appears, deliberately the said facts were not pleaded just to overcome the point of Limitation Act. 38. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.R. Vinoda vs. M.S. Susheelamma (D) by LRs. and others, Civil Appeal No. 2567/2017 dated 13.12.2021, pertaining to the definition of `legal necessity' and what are the factors to be considered for ascertaining `legal necessity'. In para-21 of the said judgment, it is discussed in detail. These facts are discussed in above para. Hence, the said principle does not help to the contention of appellants. 39. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Manjesh and another vs. Chikkegowda and others, RFA No. 1076/2013 dated 27 th March 2014, which pertains to the sale of property by karta of the family for legal necessity and family benefits. The principles of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment supports the contentions of the respondents. 40. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Section 396 regarding `Recitals of necessity' mentioned in the commentary on Hindu Law by Mulla (18 th Edition). It is not relevant to the facts of present case. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on Section 242 of Hindu Law by Mulla (21 st Edition), wherein it is held that burden to prove that property was sold for legal necessity is on the purchaser. In this regard, already it is discussed, no need to repeat. 41. In the present case, as already discussed in the above paras, there was a legal necessity to late Narasimhaiah to sell the property to meet the marriage expenses and to clear-off the earlier debt. That was proved. 42. Looking at the trial Court records, it appears, the deceased Narasimhaiah had huge outstanding debt therefore, he sold the joint family properties one after the other during the year 1971, 1973 etc., The said sale transactions are not in dispute. If there was no legal necessity, there was no necessary to sell other properties, including the disputed property. The said alienation was not challenged by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and even it is stated in one of the Sale Deeds that, in order to give money to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 for purchase or construction of house, Narasimhaiah sold the property. The said alienation was not challenged by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and even it is stated in one of the Sale Deeds that, in order to give money to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 for purchase or construction of house, Narasimhaiah sold the property. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the family was always in need of money and to meet out the said demand, Narasimhaiah sold the properties. 43. The first Appellate Court meticulously considered the contentions of the parties and rightly dismissed the suit. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the said findings. 44. For the aforesaid discussion, the substantial question of law framed above are answered against the appellant/plaintiff and defendant No.1. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER: i) The appeal is dismissed with costs. ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 28 th October 2009, passed in R.A.No.29/2001, by the Fast Track and Addl.District Judge, Holenarasipura, is confirmed. iii) The suit in O.S.No.22/1993, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Holenarasipura, is dismissed. iv) In view of disposal of the appeal, pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Court.