1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2001 passed by the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in Original Suit No.55 of 1994.

2. The unsuccessful defendants 3 to 6 are the appellants herein.

3. It would be convenient to referrer the parties as ‘plaintiffs’ and ‘defendants’.

4. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the schedule mentioned property which is a house situated in Plot No.20/B (now bearing No.7-1-397/137), MIGH Quarters, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad into 1/3rd each share and to put the plaintiffs in possession of their respective shares and also for the consequential relief to declare the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1987 passed in O.S.No.813 of 1981 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad as unenforceable, inoperative, void and illegal.

5. The learned trial Court granted both the reliefs and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs with costs. Feeling aggrieved, defendants 3 to 6 preferred this appeal.

6. The back ground facts are that the schedule mentioned house i.e. Plot No.20/B (now bearing No.7-1-397/137), MIGH Quarters, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad was allotted to defendant No.1 in the year 1971 under hire purchase agreement from the A.P. Housing Board and the same was also registered vide sale deed dated 21.04.1980.The first defendant in turn agreed to sell the schedule mentioned house to the 3rd defendant for a consideration of Rs.51,081/- and executed an agreement to sell dated 21.04.1980 in his favour. Subsequently, alleging that the first defendant failed to perform his part of contract under the said agreement to sell, the 3rd defendant filed suit in O.S.No.813 of 1981 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and the said suit was decreed in favour of 3rd defendant granting the relief of specific performance in his favour and directing the 1st defendant to execute the registered sale deed in terms of the said agreement to sell. The defendant No.1 carried the matter in appeal to the High Court in C.C.C.A.No.31 of 1988, was unsuccessful since the decree and judgment of the trial Court were confirmed by the High Court and the said findings also became final in L.P.A. Nos. 55 and 56 of 1992 by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court.

7. Since the decree passed in O.S.No.813 of 1981 became final, the question whether the agreement to sell dated 21.04.1980 executed by the first defendant is valid or supported by consideration etc. questions need not be gone into in the present appeal. However, the learned trial Court in O.S.No.55 of 1994 passed the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs solely on the ground that the deceased – 1st defendant, who is the father of defendant No.2, the paternal grand father of the plaintiffs who is the karta of the joint family has no power to sell away the shares of the other coparceners and his power of alienation is only restricted to his share. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are brothers and defendant No.2 is their father. Originally plaintiff No.1 alone filed the suit against defendants 1 to 4 showing the plaintiff No.2 as defendant No.3.But subsequently he was transposed as plaintiff No.2 as per orders in I.A.No.865 of 1996.During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died, his wife was brought on record as defendant No.7 as his legal representative. The learned trial Court recorded a finding that the defendant No.1 purchased the property with the income of joint family property which is agricultural land and that he has no authority under law to bind the plaintiffs and he can only execute the sale deed to the extent of his share. The said finding is assailed by the defendants 3 to 6/appellants in this appeal.

8. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the deceased – 1st defendant purchased the schedule mentioned property from the income of the property held by the Hindu joint family and if so, whether th