Y. BHASKAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 5 to 8 in O. S. No. 73 of 1977 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada are the appellants. They filed this appeal assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge in A. S. No. 1770 of 1984 in dismissing the appeal and confirming the decree and the judgment of the trial court.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the first respondent herein is the plaintiff and he is the son of the second defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant. Defendant No. 4 is the son of the third defendant. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 are members of Hindu joint family governed by Mitakshara Law. The joint family of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 owned and possessed 9 acres of wet land bearing R. S. No. 141 / 2 situated at Vanguturu village. The plaint schedule land is a fertile and valuable land and yielding was not less than 20 bags of paddy per acre and 40 tonnes of sugarcane per acre and it adjoins Telaprolu Vuyyuru road. The suit schedule land was being cultivated jointly. While so, when the plaintiff was minor, Ac. 2-00 of the suit schedule land was elienated to the fifth defendant under Ex. B-1 dated 20-10-1963 and the remaining 7 acres was alienated to the defendants 5 to 8 under Ex. B-2 sale deed. Defendants 1 to 3 executed Exs. B-1 and B-2 sale deeds. At that time, the plaintiff and the fourth defendant were minors and they were represented by their fathers, defendants 2 and 3. Out of the sale consideration of Rs. 6000. 00 payable under Ex. B-1, an amount of Rs. 3,000. 00 was paid at the time of registration and for the balance amount of Rs. 3,000. 00 the defendants 1 to 4 promised to give security of the lands and promissory notes of Rs. 1,500. 00 each were executed in favour of the plaintiff and the fourth defendant. Out of the sale consideration of Rs. 21,000. 00 payable under Ex. B-2, a sum of Rs. 9,575. 00 was paid at the time of registration, a sum of Rs. 1,850. 00 was paid to the Land Mortgage Bank, Gannavaram in discharge of loan and two promissory notes of Rs. 4,787-50 ps. , each were executed in favour of the plaintiff and the fourth defendant. The condition was that the amount under promissory notes will be paid only after the execution of a guarantee deed by the guardians of the minors assuring the purchasers that in case the minors challenge the sales on attaining majority their interest will be safeguarded. By the date of the suit, the above stated amounts were not paid to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit to declare the sale deeds dated 20-10-1963 as not valid and binding on the 1/6th share of the plaintiff and direct partition of the suit schedule land into six equal shares alleging that the sales are not for legal necessity and for the benefit of the family.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 4 remained ex parte. Defendants 5 to 8 disputed the allegations made in the plaint and they stated that the suit land was sold for the legal necessity, payment of debt to the land Mortgage Bank and for the benefit of the family as the family wanted to migrate to Warangal District and purchase properties there.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff, P. Ws. 1 to 12 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-10 were marked. D. Ws. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs. B-1 to B-48 were marked on behalf of defendants 5 to 8. The documents produced by the witness were marked as Exs. X-1 and X-2.

( 5 ) THE trial Court framed relevant issues and after considering the entire evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court. Hence the present appeal.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants, Sri B. V. Subbaiah, contended that the family of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 was a joint Hindu family on the date of sale and so the Kartha was entitled to sell the land for the legal necessity and for the benefit of the family. He further contended that outstanding debt of Rs. 1800. 00 was paid to th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document