M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 43 of 1985 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Markapur (for short, 'the trial Court'), preferred this appeal against the decree and judgment dated 29-04-1994, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiffs to set aside the sale deed dated 24-02-1984 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of suit schedule land, for delivery of possession of plaint schedule property to the 1st defendant after ejecting the 2nd defendant etc., was dismissed.

2. The appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants before the trial Court and, for convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties before the trial Court will be adopted throughout this judgment.

3. The plaintiffs filed this suit, for the reliefs mentioned above, alleging that schedule property belonged to late Kakunuti Rami Reddy and his sons Kakunuti Ramachandra Reddy, the 2nd plaintiff, and Kakunuti Ramakrishna Reddy and they were in possession and enjoyment of the property. The 2nd plaintiff got some landed property through his wife at Yelluru Village of Allagadda Taluk in Kurnool District and, for managing the same, the 2nd plaintiff was residing at Yalluru Village. In the first week of September, 1984, the plaintiffs came to know that, in the month of June, 1984, there was a beat of tom-tom in Papinenipalli Village about delivery of possession of schedule property to the 2nd defendant through process of the Court. Immediately, the 2nd plaintiff, on enquiry, came to know that one Bollavaram Narapa Reddy of Papinenipalli Village obtained sale deed from Kakunuti Rami Reddy by playing fraud. When the 2nd plaintiff enquired, he came to know that some of the creditors of late Kakunuti Rami Reddy filed creditor petition in I.P. No. 4 of 1959 on the file of the Court of Sub Judge, Kurnool, and that late Kakunuti Rami Reddy and his younger son Ramakrishna Reddy were impleaded as respondents and adjudged as insolvents after due enquiry.

Bollavaram Narapa Reddy exhausted all his remedies open to him under law and played all dilatory tactics to retain possession of schedule land for himself but he was not successful. He prevented sale of schedule land by the 1st defendant for a long time. The plaintiffs came to know that the property was brought to sale at 12 noon on 05-05-1982 in the office of the 1st defendant and the said sale is false, vitiated by fraud and there are material irregularities and illegalities.

No proclamation of sale of schedule property by beat of tom-tom or by affixing any notice at public place was done and that public had no notice about the auction. Bollavaram Narapa Reddy, in collusion with the village officers, manipulated all papers as if there was proclamation of auction by beat of tomtom though sale did not take place but the sale was knocked down in favour of kith and kin of Bollavaram Narapa Reddy including the 2nd defendant and their confederates. Except the 2nd defendant and Bollavaram Narapa Reddy, none others have knowledge about the proposed auction and that the persons, who participated in the auction dated 05-05-1982, were only the close associates and relatives of Bollavaram Narapa Reddy. K. Tirupathi Reddy is son-in-law of Bollavaram Narapa Reddy and Ch. Khasimpeera is Upa-Sarpanch of Ardhaveedu Gramapanchayat. Sk. S. Mahaboob Saheb and M. Samuel are the close associates of Bollavaram Narapa Reddy, who are manual labourers, having no capacity to purchase the bid property. Thus, the sale is stage managed and, in the said sale, the bid was knocked down in favour of the 2nd defendant for Rs. 8,200/-.

Both the insolvents in I.P. No. 4 of 1959 died. Though the 2nd plaintiff, son of Kakunuti Rami Reddy, got 1/3rd undivided share in the family property, was not impleaded as legal-heir of Rami Reddy, the insolvent. No notice to the legal-heirs was issued before auction of the property. On this ground alone