The sale deed executed in favor of defendant No. 1 was void under the Andhra Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Act of 1958, and that the adoption of defendant No. 4 by defendant No. 3 was valid and binding.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a judgment dated 1-8-1983 in O. S. No. 208 of 1983 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rangareddy District. In A. S. No. 273 of 1984, defendant Nos. 1,2 and 7 are the appellants and in A. S. No. 2235 of 1984, the plaintiffs are the appellants.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession and partition of plaint A-l and A-2 and plaint B and C schedule properties. Plaint A-1 schedule property consists of Acs. 72-00 of land and plaint A-2 and B schedule properties consist of Acs. 22-00 of land.

( 3 ) THE brief averments of the plaint are as follows: one Nawaz Reddy was the original owner of the plaint schedule properties. He died in 1947. Defendant No. 3 is the first wife and widow of late Nawaz reddy. Defendant No. 2 is the daughter of Nawaz Reddy by his fourth wife manikyamma. The said Manikyamma died long ago. Defendant No. 1 is the husband of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 7 is the father-in-law of defendant no. 2 and father of defendant No. 1 Defendant No. 4 is the adopted son of defendant No3 and the plaintiffs are the sons of defendant No. 4. After the death of Nawaz Reddy, there was a litigation between defendant No. 3 and the mother of defendant No. 2, Manikyamma. The litigation ended in favour of defendant No. 3 holding that defendant No. 3 succeeded to be the first wife of late Nawaz Reddy. Pursuant to the authorisation given by late Nawaz Reddy, defendant No. 3 adopted defendant No. 4 in 1953. After the adoption of defendant No. 4 on 23-4-1956, defendant No. 3 filed a petition before the Revenue Department for transfer of rights of the watandar in favour of defendant No. 4. In 1961, after a contest between defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 2. , the Revenue Department recognised defendant No. 4 as the watandar in respect of the watan held by late Nawaz Reddy. In 1958, there were misunderstandings between defendant No. 3 and the mother of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 3 arranged a matrimonial alliance to defendant No. 2 with defendant No. l whose father (D-7) agreed to give all possible help to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 if defendant No. 2 is married to his son i. e. defendant No. 1, for which he bargained a large dowry of Acs. 72-00 of land and a house and also the Kotwali watan (village Munsif s hereditary post to defendant No. 1), pursuant to which a written contract was entered into between the father of defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on 9-2-1960 specifying that the property covered by the contract was given as dowry to defendant No. 2, pursuant to which a sale deed was executed in favour of defendant No. 1. Under the sale deed Acs. 72-00 of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 8,000 /- of which the plaintiffs came to know only before the filing of the suit. There was no legal necessity to sell the land covered by plaint A-2 schedule i. e. Acs. 72-00 in favour of defendant No. 1. No consideration was paid under the sale deed. The property is worth not less than Rs. 60,000/- in the year 1960. It comprised of Acs. 47-00 of fertile wet land and Acs. 25-00 of fertile dry land. In 1960 it was fetching an income of Rs. 15,000/- net per year. However, the sale deed was executed for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/ -. Though the sale deed refers to a consideration of Rs. 8,000/-, it was virtually a gift towards the dowry contracted on an earlier agreement dated 9-2-1960. Reference to dowry in the sale deed is only to avoid the patent illegality in executing the document. In Andhra Pradesh, the Dowry Prohibition Act was introduced on 21-2-1958 by Andhra Pradesh Act 1 of 1958. Therefore, giving and taking of dowry is an offence under the said Act and hence the sale deed dated 25-4-1960 executed pursuant to the agreement dated 9-2-1960 is void and therefore the defendants do not get any title to the property. The joint family of the plaintiffs was solvent and there was no necessity at all to sell Ex. A-1 schedule properties for a small sum