( 1 ) THIS is asecond Appealby the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit. The suit was filed for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint A and B schedule properties. Subsequently, the suit was converted into one for possession also.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the plaintiffs that the 1st defendant who was the original owner of the suit properties sold the same to his daughter julekha Bi and her husband Kutubuddin (P. W. 2) under three Registered Sale deeds dated 22-8-1955 22-8-1955 and 10-4-1957 marked as Exs. A-1 to A-3 respectively and that they in turn sold the same to Plaintiffs 1 and 2 under Registered sale Deed dated 15-2-1974 (Ex. A-4 ). It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the 1st defendant subsequently executed asham and nominal sale deed dated 8-4-1974 (Ex. B-26) covering the suit properties in favour of defendants 2 and 3. As defendants 2 and 3 tried to interfere with the suit properties under the guise of the sale deed obtained by them the plaintiffs filed the present suit.

( 3 ) AS regards the plaint B schedule properties, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the said properties originally belonged to one Kulsum Bi and her husband Yatin Saheb. Plaintiff s father was brought up by them. After the death of Yatin Saheb and Kulsum bi, plaintiff s father got the B-Schedule properties and after his death, plaintiffs got the same by succession.

( 4 ) THE first defendant filed a Written statement which was adopted by defendants 2 and 3 contending inter alia that Exs. A-1 to a-3 sale deeds were nominally executed by him in favour of his daughter and son-in-law with a view to temporarily screen A-Schedule properties from his creditors and that the same were never intended to be acted upon nor were they acted upon and that he alone continued to remain in possession and enjoyment of the properties in his own right. The plaintiff s vendors had no title in the same and they could not, therefore, convey any title to the plaintiffs. So far as the B-Schedule properties are concerned the defendants disputed the title of the plaintiffs for the same and asserted that Kulsum Bi was no other than the sister of the mother of the first defendant and as such the first defendant was entitled to the B-Schedule properties as the legal heir of Kulsum Bi.

( 5 ) BOTH the Courts below have dismissed the suit holding concurrently that the sale deeds Exs. A-1 to A-3 are sham and nominal and that plaintiffs have not established their title to the B-Schedule property. They, however, held that the first defendant also has no title to the same.

( 6 ) IN this Second Appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants has mainly canvassed the findings recorded by the lower court with regard to the A-Schedule only and did not seriously press the Second Appeal with regard to the B-Schedule properties.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the findings recorded by both the Courts below as regards the sham and nominal nature of Exs. A-1 to A-3 are vitiated by a failure to consider material evidence and also by misreading some of the documents like Exs. A-6 and A-7. The learned counsel further contended that in view of section 53 of Transfer of Property Act, Exs. A-1 to A-3 are not void but they are only voidable at the instance of the creditors. As between the 1st defendant and his vendees, the transactions are perfectly valid. The learned Counsel further contended that the findings that the first defendant perfected title to the A-Schedule properties by adverse possession is erroneous and unsustainable inlaw. The learned Counsel finally contended that by virtue of Section 41 of the Transfer of property Act, the first defendant cannot question the sale of the properties by the ostensible owners in favour of the plaintiffs.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, Sri K. V. Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below are perfe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document