A party cannot succeed on a case which he has failed to set up. One member of a joint Hindu family cannot sue to recover any property belonging to the joint family without impleading the other members as parties to the suit. Exhibit B-1 satisfies all the requirements of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and can therefore form the basis for defence under section 53-A.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and decree of the District Judge, East Godavari given on 10-8-1963 whereby the learned Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff s suit.

( 2 ) THE essential facts are that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit land admeasuring 3 acres and 30 cents and for recovery of the value of the crop of Rs. 800. 00 alleged to have been removed by the defendant in 1959. He also claimed damages for use and occupation for two years 1959-60 and 1960-61 at Rs. 800. 00 a year and also claimed future profits. It was alleged inter alia that the defendant married Suryavathi, the sister of the plaintiff, in 1956. She unfortunately died in 1960 leaving behind her two children. The plaintiff claims that he purchased the suit land on 3-7-1955 on the basis of a sale deed, Exhibit A-2, from a third person and since then has been in possession of the land in his own right. The land is situated at the village Thotapeta, a place where the defendant lived. He therefore asked the defendant to cultivate the land through his farm-servants. Taking advantage of the marriage with the plaintiff s sister, the defendant trespassed into the suit land in January 1959 and removed paddy heaps. In spite of demands, the defendant is not parting with the land nor is interested in paying the value of the paddy which he has removed. The plaintiff ultimately sent a notice but the defendant sent false reply. The plaintiff asserted in the plaint that the suit land is not the joint family property of himself, his father and brothers and that it is his self-acquired property. He further denied the assertion of the defendant that it was given to his sister at the time of marriage towards pasu-pukunkumam. He also denied any knowledge about Exhibit B-1 dated 8-3-1960. He however stated that he might have attested the agreement without knowing the contents thereof. He further stated that he was divided from his father long prior to the agreement as per the partition deed. Exhibit A-3 dated 18-10-1957. Thus denying the allegations made in the reply notice Exhibit A-1 dated 14-6-1961, the plaintiff instituted the suit.

( 3 ) THE principal defence set up by the defendant was that the suit land was gifted by Gangiraju, the father of the plaintiff, to his daughter Suryavathi at the time of her marriage with the defendant. As per the terms of the marriage settlement, Gangi-raju agreed to give 5 acres of land to his daughter and the same was announced at the time of the marriage. Since no suitable land was available for purchase at that time, the plaintiff s father suggested that the suit land in the defendant s village purchased with family funds may be taken possession of by the defendant till another land 5 acres in extent was purchased. Accordingly the plaintiff and his father put this land in the possession of the defendant on behalf of his wife in 1957 and since then he has been cultivating it on behalf of his wife. He disputed the fact that the plaintiff had purchased the land with his own funds. In 1960 when the defendant and his wife demanded Gangiraju to give away the balance of land, he put in possession of the defendant 1 acre and 65 cents in Drakshramam village and permitted the defendant to continue in possession till equal extent was purchased and gift deed executed in respect of the entire extent, Gangiraju executed the agreement dated 8-3-1960 (Exhibit B-l) and the plaintiff attested the same. As the defendant declined to marry the younger sister of his deceased wife as was desired by Gangiraju, disputes arose between them and so the plaintiff has come forward with false allegations. After the death of his wife, the property has now devolved upon the defendant and his children.

( 4 ) UPON these pleadings, the Subordinate Judge, Kakinady framed issues and after recording the evidence adduced by the parties decreed the plaintiff s suit

( 5 ) DISSATISFIED with tha