C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants in this appeal. They are the sons of 9th defendant in the suit. For the sake of convenience the part es will be referred to herein as per their rank in the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs and the 9th defendant were members of a Joint Hindufamily. Plaint a Schedule property which consists of a village site together with a thatched house therein, was the joint family property of the plaintiffs and the 9th defendant. The suit is filed for a declaration that the sale deed ex. B-2 dated 11-12-1962 executed by the 9th defendant in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of the suit property and the subsequent alienation of the same by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of defendants 5 to 8 under Ex. B-3, ex. B-4 and Ex. B-5 are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs and for consequential relief of partition and separate possession of 2/3rdshare therein to the plaintiffs and for other incidental reliefs. It appears that the 9th defendant was involved in a protracted litigation with one Narasimharaju, which went on from the year 1942 to 1962. For the purpose of meeting the said litigation expenses, the 9th defendant initially borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from the first defendant, who is no other than his nephew and mortgaged the suit property in favour of the 1st defendant under Ex. B-1, dated 29-04-1962. The litigation in the Supreme Court went against the 9th defendant. As a result the 9th defendant was obliged to pay heavy amounts to his opponent towards costs as well as by way of restitution. After the said litigation ended, the 9th defendant sold the suit property to the 1st defendant under the sale deed ex. B-2, dated 11-12-1962. Defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of the 1st defendant. Defendants 1 to 4 sold the suit property to defendants 5 to 8 under three different sale deeds,namely, Exs. B-3, B-4 and B-5, dated 7-6-1974,7-6-1974 and 25-1-1975 respectively. The plaintiffs filed the suit after attaining majority.

( 3 ) THE said alienations were sought to be questioned by the plaintiffs mainlyon the ground that the alienations were sham and nominal and they were mainly intended to screen the property from the reach of the creditors and that in any case the alienation is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs as the sale is not justified by any legal necessity or benefit to the estate.

( 4 ) THE defence was that the sale deed Ex. B-2 as well as the subsequentsale deeds Exs. B-3 to B-5 are real and bona fide transactions and that they are fully supported by consideration and that they are perfectly valid and binding on the plaintiffs. As the sale was made by the father for discharge of antecedent debts and also for meeting the litigation expenses, the same, by no stretch of imagination, can be called illegal or immoral debts. It is also contended that the sales were fully acted upon and the vendees have constructed pucca buildings in the portions purchased by them. It is also further contended that the suit is barred by limitation.

( 5 ) THE lower Court found that the mortgage deed Ex. B-1 as well as thesale deed Ex. B-2 executed by the 9th defendant in favour of the 1st defendant are fully supported by consideration and they are valid and binding on the plaintiffs. The lower Court however found the issue of limitation in favour of the plaintiffs. On the said findings the lower Court dismissed the suit.

( 6 ) IN this appeal Sri I. Venkata Narayana, learned Counsel for the appellantshas mainly contended that the sale of the suit property by the 9th defendant to the 1st defendant does not bind the plaintiffs as the sale is not justified by any legal necessity and that it was mainly intended to screen the property from the reach of the creditors. It is also contended that the sale consideration stipulated under Ex. B-2 is too low and nominal as the propetry was a valuable property situated in the heart of the village and its value was not less than rs. 50,000/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document