The burden of proving legal necessity for the alienation of ancestral property lies on the alienee, and the transaction must be for the family's benefit, binding all undivided family members.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is filed by the appellants/defendants 3 and 4 challenging the decree and Judgment dated 22.02.2013 in O.S. No.58 of 2008 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki (for short, 'the trial court').

2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs 1 and 2, who filed the suit in O.S.No.58 of 2008 seeking partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and deliver separate possession of one such share to each of them. Respondents 3 and 4 are the Defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit.

3. Referring to the parties hereinafter as arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate potential confusion and better comprehend the case.

4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:

(a) Approximately 35 years ago, the joint family, comprising the 1st Defendant and his deceased father, Mallareddy, possessed ancestral property measuring Ac.6.00 cents of land and Ac.0.15 cents site in their native village, Kondamur. After migrating to Reningavaram and settling there around 30 years ago, Mallareddy passed away intestate. His wife, the 2nd Defendant, and son, the 1st Defendant, were left to succeed his estate, representing an undivided half share in the properties above. Subsequently, the joint family, comprised of Defendants 1 and 2, sold the properties in Kondamur village and utilized the proceeds to acquire the plaint schedule properties at Kondamur village. Given that the 1st Defendant serves as the Kartha and Manager of the joint family, the sale deeds for the properties in Reningavaram, namely the plaint schedule properties, were obtained in his name during their acquisition. The plaintiffs and Defendants 1 and 2 have jointly possessed and enjoyed the plaint schedule properties.

(b) Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the minor children of the 1st Defendant. Over the past five years, the 1st Defendant has succumbed to vices, squandering family income. Exploiting the 1st Defendant's vulnerability, Defendants 3 and 4 orchestrated a nominal, sham, and collusive sale deed from him under Ex.B.1, dated 23.01.2004, explicitly pertaining to item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, disregarding the legitimate rights of the Plaintiffs. The 1st Defendant lacks the authority to dispose of the plaint schedule properties in a manner prejudicial to the rights of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Defendants 1 and 2 hold a 1/4th share each in the plaint schedule properties. Despite the 2nd Defendant expressing a willingness to partition the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and allocate one such share to each Plaintiff, this intention has not materialized. Consequently, the Plaintiffs find themselves compelled to institute legal proceedings to secure their rightful share in the plaint schedule properties.

5. Defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte in the suit.

6. The 3rd Defendant has adopted the written statement of the 4th Defendant, asserting that the 1st Defendant has no vices and effectively manages the joint family comprising the Plaintiffs, their mother Narasamma, and the 2nd Defendant under one roof. According to their contentions, they jointly acquired item No.2 for Rs.6,61,000/- on 23.03.2004 from the 1st Defendant and his wife, with the delivery of possession. The 1st Defendant's wife serves as an attesting witness to this transaction. Further, they contend that neither the minor Plaintiffs nor their mother raised any objections regarding the sale of additional property by the 1st Defendant in 2002. Allegedly, the 1st Defendant utilized the sale proceeds to construct a shopping complex, investing Rs.2,00,000/- in item No.1, depositing Rs.1,00,000/- in his name, and Rs.25,000/- each in the names of the minor Plaintiffs in Agri Gold under Exs.B.31 and B.32. Additionally, he discharged the housing loan in the name of the 2nd Defendant. Aft