The appellants, defendants in O.S. No.37 of 1982 on the file of the Prl. Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree in AS No.1995 of 1988 dated 28.4.2000. The parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

2. The widow of Sri G. Govindarajulu Naidu and the widow, son and daughter of Sri G. Nan dagopa I Naidu, (son of Sri Govindarajulu Naidu), filed the suit in OS No.37 of 1982 for declaration of title and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is there case that in the year 1974 there was thatched houses in the suit schedule property in the occupation of tenants, that with a view to get them evicted Sri G. Govindarajulu Naidu had transferred the property in the name of the defendant who was his close confidante, was assisting him in household work and running errands for him, that the defendant was working as a peon in Co-operative Town Bank Limited, Chittoor, that Sri G. Govindarajulu Naidu had executed a sham and nominal sale deed in favour of the defendant on 12.12.1974 without any intention to convey title, that the defendant did not have the capacity to purchase the suit schedule property which as worth Rs. one 1akh, that Sri G. Govindarajulu Naidu was then in good health and had no need to sell the suit schedule property to the defendant, that the amount mentioned in the sale deed as consideration was a paltry figure of Rs. 1 0,000/-, that the water tank and the urinals in a portion of the suit property was part and parcel of Sri Gurunatha Talkies which belonged to the plaintiffs, that even after executiop of the sale deed Sri G. Govindarajulu Naidu continued to be in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property colleting rents from the tenants, that the original sale deed executed in favour of the defendant was also with Sri G. Govindarajulu Naidu for sometime, that the sale deed was filed into Court in the eviction proceedings instituted in the name of the defendant against the tenants in occupation of various huts, that the plaintiff paid municipal and other taxes in the name of the defendant, that G. Nandagopal Naidu died in 1975 and thereafter Sri G. Govindarajulu Naidu also passed away in the year 1976.

3. According to the plaintiffs the defendant became avaricious and, taking advantage of the sale deed dated 12.12.1974, had issued a legal notice on 27.6.1981 claiming title to the suit scheduled property to which a reply notice was sent on 10.7.2001, that the property belonged to the joint family in which Sri G. Nandagopal Naidu was entitled to half a share until the date of his death in 1975, that Sri G. Govindarajulu Naidu was entitled only for a half share in the suit property as on 12.12.1974 when the sham and nominal deed of sale was executed in favour of the defendant, that Sri G. Govindarajulu Naidu could not convey anything more than his undivided half share in the suit property and, after the death of Sri G. NandagopaI Naidu, the plaintiffs were entitled for half the share unaffected by execution of the nominal sale deed in favour of the defendant.

4. The defendant, while admitting his relationship with Sri G. Govindarajulu Naidu, denied that the plaint schedule property was a joint family property. According to him the property was the exclusive property of Sri G. Govindarajulu Naidu who sold the property along with the thatched houses to him for pressing legal necessities and for valid consideration of Rs.10,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 12.12.1974. The defendant would deny that the sale deed is a sham, that the property was worth about a lakh in the year 1974 or that he had no capacity to purchase the property. According to him the proper price for the property, a vacant site in a by-lane besides rocks, was not more than Rs.10,000/-, and that he had the capacity to purchase the property. While adm