( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 22-06-1993 rendered by the District Judge, Khammam, in A. S. No. 39 of 1988 reversing the judgment and decree dated 3-6-1988 passed in O. S. No. 193 of 1978 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Khammam.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the said suit O. S. No. 193 of 1978. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred as they are arrayed in the suit.

( 3 ) THE appellant-plaintiff filed the said suit for partition and separate possession of his l/3rd share in an extent of 8 acres in Survey Number 332 situated in Yedulapuram village in Khammam District. The case of the plaintiff is that himself, D-4 and D-5 are the sons of the first defendant and it constituted a joint family and that there was a partition between himself, D-1, D-4 and d-5 in the year 1967 and all the joint family properties were divided. The present suit property i. e. an extent of 8 acres in Survey Number 332 was allotted to the share of the first defendant to be enjoyed by the first defendant and his wife during their life time without any right of alienation and that subsequent to their death, the plaintiff, D-4 and D-5 are entitled for 1/3rd share each. It is further the case of the plaintiff that in 1971 the plaintiff filed the suit O. S. No. 116 of 1971 against his father-first defendant when the later tried to alienate the suit property contrary to the understanding arrived at the time of partition and that suit was decreed and the first defendant was permanently restrained to alienate the suit property in favour of the third parties. It is further the case of the plaintiff that in spite of the said decree in O. S. No. 116 of 1971 the first defendant alienated 4 acres in the suit Survey number 332 in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 and an extent of 20 guntas in favour of the fourth defendant and executed registered sale deeds dated 15-10-1976 and that the said sales are not binding on the plaintiff as they were effected contrary to the understanding arrived at the time of family partition and also contrary to the injunction order passed in O. S. No. 116 of 1971. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in that land. It is also pleaded in the plaint that since the purchasers were put in possession of the suit property by virtue of the sale transactions dated 15-10-1976, the life interest of the first defendant and his wife came to an end and that it amounts to civil death to the extent of the properties sold.

( 4 ) THE defendants 1 and 4 filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. They also denied the alleged partition of the joint family properties. It is their positive case that the first defendant is the manager of the joint family and as such the plaintiff cannot question the right of the first defendant in alienating the property and that the first defendant alienated the said properties to meet the marriage expenses of his daughters. They also pleaded that the decree passed in O. S. No. 116of 1971 does not confer any right or title on the plaintiff. They have also pleaded that the suit is barred for misjoinder of causes of action and that the suit is barred by limitation.

( 5 ) THE defendants 2 and 3 filed a separate written statement. They also pleaded that they are the bona fide purchasers for value - that the first defendant was the absolute owner of the suit property and that the first defendant sold the suit property in their favour to discharge the debts incurred for the marriage of his daughters and the plaintiff is not entitled to challenge the validity of the said alienation.

( 6 ) THE trial Court settled as many as eight issues for trial. During the course of trial, P. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. D. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and no documents