C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal raises a short but interesting question of Hindu Law. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. He filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into five equal shares and to allot one such share to him after ejecting the defendants therefrom and to award future profits on his share. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The first defendant is the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. They originally constituted a Hindu joint family of which the first defendant was the Kartha. The 5th defendant is the alienee of the plaint schedule property under a sale deed dated 3-11-1963 executed by the first defendant. The sale deed was preceded by an agreement of sale dated 15-5-1963 executed by the first defendant in favour of the 5th defendant. After the said agreement of sale but before the execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff issued a notice to defendants 1 to 5 on 25-7-1963 demanding partition to which a reply was sent on behalf of defendants 1 to 5 on 3-8-1963 asserting that the agreement of sale dated 15-5-1963 was executed by the first defendant for legal necessity and family benefit, that the plaintiff also was a consenting party to the same as he signed as an attestor in the said agreement and that the same is valid and binding on him. The plaintiff filed the present suit on 17-9-1963 denying his signature on the agreement of sale dated 15-5-1963 and assailing its validity and binding nature and claiming partition and separate possession, of his share in the suit property. Thereafter, during the pendency of the suit, the 5th defendant obtained the sale deed dated 3-11-1963 from the first defendant and got it registered. Subsequently the 5th defendant died and defendants 6 to 10 were added as his legal representatives,

( 2 ) THE first defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by defendants 2 to 4 contending that the suit property was his self acquired property in which the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are not entitled for any share. It was alternatively pleaded that in any case the agreement of sale dated 15-5-1963 as well as the sale deed dated 3-11-1963 have been executed for discharge of antecedent debts which have been contracted by the first defendant for joint family necessity and benefit and as such they are. perfectly valid and binding on the plaintiff. The 5th defendant also filed a written statement on the same lines.

( 3 ) THE trial Court held that the suit property was the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 and that the agreement of sale dated 15-5-1963 does not appear to be genuine and that the defendants failed to establish that the sale of the suit property by the first defendant to the 5th defendant was justified by legal necessity or family benefit or that it was made for discharge of antecedent debts and accordingly decreed the suit by passing a preliminary decree for partition. On the appeal preferred by the defendants 6 to 10 the lower appellate Court while agreeing with the trial Court that the suit property was the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4, however, held that the signature of the plaintiff on the agreement of sale Ex. B-13 as an attestor is genuine and that the said agreement of sale as well as the sale deed Ex. B-15 are executed for the discharge of antecedent debts incurred by the first defendant for the benefit of the family and they are, therefore valid and binding on the plaintiff. On the said findings, the lower appellate Court reversed the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.

( 4 ) SRI V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant assailed the Judgment of the lower appellate Court by contending that the debts mentioned in the sale deed Ex. B-15 are concocted as they are not mentioned either in the agreement of sale Ex. B-13 or the reply notice Ex. A-5, that the signature of the plaintiff on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document