Alienee cannot lead any evidence to prove that transaction in question was in fact supported by legal necessity.

1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dt.19.12.1992 in OS.No.15 of 1987 on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Judge, Parvatipuram. The appellants are Defendant Nos.6, 7, 8, 9, 23-31 in this suit.

2. Heard Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narasu, counsel for appellants and Smt. Lalitha, representing Sri D. Ramalingaswamy, counsel for 1st respondent.

3. The said suit was filed by 1st respondent/plaintiff through his GPA holder seeking partition of plaint ABCD schedule properties into two equal shares and for delivery of one such share to plaintiff after evicting defendants therefrom, for partition of e schedule movables into two equal shares and for possession of such share or value thereof from 2nd respondent/1st defendant, for profits and costs.

4. By judgment and decree dt.19.12.1992, the suit was decreed for partition of plaint ABCD schedule properties, except items 1 and 2 of Lot I of plaint C schedule into 4 equal shares and to put plaintiff in possession of one such share. Mesne profits were directed to be enquired into on a separate application. Suit as against D-2 was dismissed as per a compromised recorded in IA.No.482 of 1992.

5. Defendant Nos.23 to 31 are the legal representatives of the deceased 3rd defendant. Pending appeal the 5th appellant/defendant No.23 died but her legal representatives are already on record as appellant Nos.6 to 13.

THE SCOPE OF THIS APPEAL:

6. The counsel for appellant stated the contest in the appeal is only in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 and lot II of the plaint ‘C’ Schedule and that he is not agitating in respect of any other item of the plaint schedule property.

7. In view of this submission, only the pleadings and evidence in respect of this item of the property will be considered in the appeal and I find it unnecessary to deal with the pleadings and evidence regarding the other items in the property.

THE PLAINT:

8. The 1st respondent/plaintiff is the son of D.21 in the suit. The 1st defendant and 21st defendant and another by name Bhagavathi Prasad Thotraj are the sons of one Narasimha Narayana Thotraj.

9. Bhagavathi Prasad Thotraj died unmarried in or about 1970 and Narasimha Narayana Thotaj died in 1977.

10. The plaintiff contended that his father D.21 was mentally unsound and had been hospitalized; that D.21, D.1 and Bhagavathi Prasad Thotraj and their father Narasimha Narayana Thotraj are members of a Hindu Mitakshara Joint Family; that after the death of Bhagavathi Prasad Thotraj in 1970 D.21, D.1 and their father Narasimha Narayana Thotraj continued to be joint family members owning the plaint ‘A’ to ‘E’ schedule properties and Narasimha Narayana Thotraj was acting as family manager; that after hospitalization of D.21, his share in the property was also managed by Narasimha Narayana Thotraj; and that he died in 1977.

11. He further contended that during his lifetime Narasimha Narayana Thotraj and the deceased Bhagavathi Prasad Thotraj executed two registered sale deeds dt.23.03.1969 and 19.04.1969 for Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,000/-, respectively in favour of 2nd defendant in respect of items 1 and 2 of lot I of plaint ‘C’ schedule; that these sales made in favour of 2nd defendant are not for family benefit or for legal necessity and are not valid and binding on the plaintiff’s share. He also contended that item Nos.1 and 2 of lot II of plaint ‘C’ schedule were granted on a permanent lease under a document dt.26.11.1957 in favour of the 3rd defendant ignoring the rights of D.21 and in derogation of the rights of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff also alleged that properties in the other schedules were also sold away by the Narasimha Narayana Thotraj or the 1st defendant; in al the properties covered by the sale deeds executed by Narasimha Narayana Thotraj or 1st defendant, he had a right, title and interest which has been ignored by 1st defendant and his father Narasimha Narayana Thotraj. He contended that he and 21st defendant are entitled f