CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated March 27, 1975 of the Prl. Civil Judge, Bijapar, in o. S. No. 75/1972 on his file. RFA. No. 87/75 has been preferred by defendants 5 and 6 RFA. No. 90/1975 has been preferred by defendant-4.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the present appeals may be briefly stated as follows :- plaint was presented by respondent-1 before us, who was the plaintiff in the court below, claiming partition of plaint schedule 'a', 'b' and 'c' properties and separate possession of his share as well as for declaration that alienation of properties in favour of appellants and others, who had purchased the same from defendants 1 to 3, to be not binding on him. Plaint schedule 'a' properties consisted three survey numbers, i. e. , Sy. Nos. 933, 934 and 699 of Torvi village in bijapur Taluka measuring 22 acres 32 guntas, 18 acres 30 guntas and 17 acres 06 guntas respectively. The first of the lands mentioned was valued at Rs. 40,000/-, the second at Rs. 30,000/- and the third at rs. 50,000/ -. Plaint 'b' schedule property consisted of a house situated at bijapur in Ward No. 1 measuring 110 sq. yards bearing OTS. No. 1728 and it was valued at Rs. 20,000/ -. Similarly a house situated at Torvi village bearing VPC. No. 100 was also part ot the property in plaint 'b' schedule and valued at Rs. 6,000/ -. Plaint 'c' schedule properties consisted of land situated in two villages, i. e. , Navarasapur and Torvi having Sy. Nos. 78, 891/1 694/2b, 694/2a, 693/1 and 891/3 measuring in all about 52 or 53 acres.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 are none other than the brothers and mother of the plaintiff. It was alleged by the plaintiff that his father died in the year 1949 when he was still a baby and that his brothers were aged 9 and 6 respectively ; that defendant-3, the mother was looking after the properties on behalf of the minor children ; that the mother sold certain properties in or about the year 1956 after they had obtained possession of the lands from the tenants and thereafter defendants 1 and 2 who had attained majority between 1961 and 1964 sold the remaining properties; that the alienations made by them were not for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate The income from the lands and the income from the family business started by his brothers in 1961-62 was more than sufficient to meet the needs of the family and, therefore, the alienations were made not for any legal necessity and therefore not binding on the plaintiff. He therefore asked for his 1/4th share in the joint family properties and for a declaration that the said alienations were not binding on him.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 remained ex parte. Defendants 7 and 8 are not before us. As already noticed, only defendants 4, 5 and 6 have preferred these appeals. In the course of this judgment we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial court. Defendants resisted, by their separate statements, the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that they were bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and that the alienations were made for legal necessity of the family and that the plaintiff, in the circumstances, was bound by the alienations. They, however, did not dispute the relationship of the plaintiff to defendants 1 to 3 and the nature of the properties alienated being joint Hindu family properties.

( 5 ) THE defendants also resisted the suit claim as being barred by limitation on such pleadings, the trial court framed as many as 12 issues and we are only concerned with issue Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 10 and 11 in these appeals and they are as follows :- (1) Whether defendant-4 proves that defendants 1 and 2 mortgaged the suit house property (property A shewn in schedule B) on 18-9-1961 on 10-5-1963 and on 185 1964 and finally defendants 1, 2 and 3 sold the said property to his mother for legal necessity and for the benefit of the estate ? (2) Whether defendant-4 proves that his mother made b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document