( 1 ) SAPPA Srinivas, as minor represented by next friend Randhi ayyanna, the maternal grandfather, instituted the suit for partition as indigent person i. e. , O. P. No. 59/92 which was numbered as o. S. No. 78/94 on the file of Senior Civil judge, Tadepallegudem. The said minor was declared as major and next friend was discharged as per order in IA No. 593/ 2000 dated 19/7/2000. On the respective pleadings of the parties, issues were settled and PW-1 - next friend, PW-2 -Buddala ramanna, PW-3 - the plaintiff, were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-9 were marked. Likewise, DW-1 to DW-10 were examined and Exs. B-1 to B-10 were marked. The court of first instance granted a preliminary decree for partition holding that the alienations are not binding on the shares of the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant on 11-9-2000. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the alienees/defendants 4 to 9 preferred a. S. No. 111/2001 on the file of I Additional district Judge, West Godavari, Eluru and the appellate Court dismissed the said appeal by Judgment and decree dated 16-7-2002. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed.

( 2 ) NO doubt, the report of the commissioner in LA. No. 1144/2002 in LA. No. 478/2001 in O. S. No. 78/94 on the file of Senior Civil Judge also was brought to the notice of this Court relating to the objection to stop execution of warrant and also a finding relating to removal of stones. This aspect may not be much relevant for the present purpose.

( 3 ) ELABORATE submissions were made by Sri Prabhakar, representing the appellants, sri Durga Prasad Rao, representing the respondent/plaintiff and Sri Sivaram prasad, representing the 2nd respondent/ 3rd defendant, Sri Rama Krishna, 4th respondent/2nd defendant in the suit. Submissions of Sri Prabhakar, Counsel representing the appellants :

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel commenced his submissions pointing out the substantial questions of law. The Counsel had contended that though specific plea of collusion was raised, no issue was framed in this regard the learned Counsel also had pointed out the recitals in the documents and also had raised a specific ground stating that setting aside alienations was not prayed for though it was pleaded that these alienations are not binding on the respective parties. The learned counsel also in detail had explained the pedigree and the relationship between the parties. The learned Counsel also would submit that there is no specific pleading relating to ancestral nucleus and subsequent acquisitions out of such nucleus. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that defendants 1 and 2 were set ex parte which would be suggestive of the collusion. The Counsel also would maintain that the property acquired in the name of a member of the joint family cannot automatically be taken as family property liable for partition. The Counsel also would point out that the burden is on the part of the plaintiff in this regard and the same was not discharged. The learned Counsel also in detail explained the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The Counsel specifically pointed out that the plea of "addicted to vices" which is the main ground of attack on alienations is a vague plea devoid of any particulars and hence on such a vague plea, finding that alienations are not binding on the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant, cannot be recorded and hence such findings are unsustainable. The learned Counsel also had explained that absolutely there is no evidence to show that these debts had been contracted for any immoral purposes and the Counsel also would contend that even on the strength of the doctrine of pious obligation, the sons are bound to discharge such debts and hence in this view of the matter, definitely the alienations are supported by legal necessity. The Counsel also would maintain that even otherwise these properties acquired by the lsl defendant cannot be said to be the properties acquired by the karta of the joint f