ORDER

1. THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT 1 RUDREGOWDA FILED A SUIT FOR DECLARATION THAT THE SALE MADE BY HIS MOTHER KALAMMA (RESPONDENT 2 HEREIN) ON 5-8-1974 IN FAVOUR OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT B. BASAPPA, WAS NULL AND VOID AND NOT BINDING ON THE PLAINTIFF ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUIT PROPERTY BELONGED TO JOINT HINDU FAMILY AND THE SALE MADE BY HIS MOTHER WAS WITHOUT LEGAL NECESSITY. IN ADDITION TO THE DECLARATION, THE PLAINTIFF SOUGHT THE RELIEF OF POSSESSION OF THE SUIT PROPERTY ALONG WITH MESNE PROFITS.

2. THE SUIT WAS RESISTED BY THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT (B. BASAPPA), INTER ALIA, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUIT PROPERTY WAS NOT ANCESTRAL AND THE SALE HAD BEEN EFFECTED FOR LEGAL NECESSITY AS THE FAMILY OF THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND HIS MOTHER WERE IN FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES AFTER THE DEATH OF THE PLAINTIFFS FATHER. ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADINGS OF THE PARTIES ISSUES WERE FRAMED. THE TRIAL COURT HELD THAT THE SUIT PROPERTY WAS NOT ANCESTRAL. SALE MADE BY KALAMMA (RESPONDENT 2) IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT-DEFENDANT WAS UPHELD AND THE SUIT WAS DISMISSED.

3. APPEAL FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT WAS DISMISSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT WAS