The sale deed executed by defendants in favor of the 4th defendant was invalid to the extent of the plaintiff's undivided share in the property.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 12-7-2018 in A.S.No.14 of 2017 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, YSR Kadapa District, partly allowing the Judgment and decree, dated 03-11-2015, in O.S.No.79 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.

2. The appellant herein is the 4^th defendant, the 1^st respondent is plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.79 of 2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.

3. The plaintiff, who is the mother of defendants 1 to 3, initiated action in O.S.No.79 of 2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, with a prayer for partition of the suit schedule properties into four equal shares and to allot one such share to her and also for declaration of registered sale deed dated 10-6-2008 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the 4^th defendant as invalid in law and not binding on the plaintiff.

4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, preliminarily decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful 4^th defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.14 of 2017, on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty. The learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, partly allowed the appeal by setting aside declaration of sale deed under Ex.A-4, dated 10-6-2008, to the extent of 1/4^th share of the plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the 4^th defendant approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.79 of 2012, is as follows:

It is pleaded that the plaintiff’s husband, by name Mannuru Jayaramaiah, was lawful owner of the suit schedule properties, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 24-11-1969 from its lawful owners Shaik Abdul Latif and Gundluru Fekroobi. The said Jayaramaiah constructed two houses in the schedule property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same until his death. He died intestate about 20 years back, leaving behind him the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs. After his death, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule property without partition. While so, the plaintiff went to Kuwait for her livelihood. Taking advantage of her absence at Rayachoty, the defendants 1 to 3 have created a sham and nominal registered sale deed dated 10-6-2008 in favour of the 4^th defendant with respect to the suit schedule property. After the plaintiff returned from Kuwait, she came to know about alienation of the property by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the 4^th defendant. The plaintiff is entitled for 1/4^th share in the suit schedule property and she demanded the defendants 1 to 3 for partition and separate possession of her 1/4^th share in the schedule property, but the defendants postponed the same. The plaintiff issued legal notice dated 06-12-2011 to the defendants for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property. The defendants 1 to 3 have received the said legal notice and did not choose to give any reply. The 4^th defendant issued reply notice on 15-12-2011 with untenable grounds and therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

7. The defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement before the trial Court. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:

They admitted their relationship with the plaintiff and also admitted that the plaint schedule property is self-acquired property of their father and their father died intestate. It is contended that the defendants 1 to 3 have sold their share of property in house bearing Door No.46/53 i.e. their 3/4^th right in item No.1 of the schedule property, but the 4^th defendant obtained sale deed from them by mentioning