( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs first appeal from the judgment and decree dated 12-11-1990, passed by Sri k. r. prasad rao, xiv additional city civil judge, (mayo hall), Bangalore in original suit No. 649 of 1980 (no. 7 of 74), dismissing the plaintiffs-appellant's suit for the reliefs mentioned hereinafter in toto.

( 2 ) THAT the plaintiff in the above suit claimed: (A)DECREE for declaration to the effect that the suit scheduled properties exclusively belong to plaintiff; and (B) that any alienation of suit properties i. e. , items 3 and 4 of schedule properties even made by defendant 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 are illegal, null and void and are not binding on plaintiff; (C) decree for permanent injunction;

( 3 ) THAT the plaintiff-defendant i. e. , the appellant-respondents are related as below: p. Govindappa Smt. Kenchamma (defendant 1) plaintiff (g. c. papanna) (defendant No. 2) (d. Chikkamma) (defendant No. 3) (puttalakshmamma) (defendant No. 4) govind RAJ natural son auras putra given in adoption to madke anand c. Govindappa. that plaintiff had three other brothers: 1. Thammarha; 2. Thummaraj; these three brothers of 3. Papamma. Plaintiff are now not alive.

( 4 ) THAT on 21-12-1933 deed of settlement was executed by t. b. borajjannah (brother of defendant 1) and Smt. Kenchamma-defendant 1 (mother of plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4) whereunder property described in schedule to the plaint was transferred and settled in trust upon defendant 1, subject to condition that defendant 1, shall be at liberty to enjoy the said property during her lifetime with no power to transfer the same by sale, gift, mortgage or exchange etc. , and that after her life interest expires and the said property shall be divided amongst the sons of defendant 1 as then surviving at the time of death of defendant 1 and Smt. Kenchamma. Defendant 1 is in possession of suit property by virtue of deed of settlement. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the deed of settlement dated 21-12-1933, to be in possession of defendant 1.

( 5 ) THAT plaintiff-appellant has alleged to have come to know in early 1973 that defendant 1-kenchamma executed a sale deed on 5-10-1972 in defendant 2's favour of houses bearing No. 123-a and 123-b bearing (new nos. 358 and 359), located at old poor house road, civil station, Bangalore i,e. , item 3 of schedule for Rs. 20,000/- and the same have been now recorded in municipal corporation records in the name of defendant 2, after deleting the name of defendant 1. that it has also come to the notice of plaintiff that properties item nos. 3 and 4 of the schedule (premises 210, 210/a, 210/b) (new nos. 262 and 261) old poor house road, Bangalore have been changed and recorded in the name of defendant 3 from that of defendant 1, on account of the same alleged to have been sold by defendant 3. That defendants 2 and 3 claim themselves to be the owners of schedule items 3 and 4 properties respectively; plaintiffs case is that sale deed in favour of defendants 2 and 3 are illegal, null and void as defendant 1 being the only trustee could not transfer as per the terms of settlement deed dated 21-12-1933. said sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed rights to have vested in him by virtue of settlement deed 21-12-1933, as regards schedule properties and that right cannot be defeated by sale deeds alleged to have been made by defendant 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3. defendant had no legal right nor legal necessity to transfer or to execute the sale deed dated 5-10-1972. That the recital about legal necessity in sale deed is wrong and fictitious. That sale deed dated 5-10-1972 is without consideration and is void. in sale deed dated 5-10-1972, defendant 1 has alleged herself to be owner of properties by virtue of deed dated 9-9-1924, but the plaintiff has alleged the same to be wrong and asserted that the property under deed dated 8-9-1924, was purchased by her brother borajjannah, that the deed of