YENKATA RAMAIYA, J.

( 1 ) THE question for decision in this appeal is whether the dismissal of the suit filed by applts. on the ground that it is not a representative type is correct. The undisputed facts are that the properties described in the plaint schedule belonged to the joint family of defts. 1 to 4 of which deft. 1 is manager, that in a suit filed against deft. 1 for recovery of money due by his father to the heirs of one Kale Gowda there was a decree on 16-7-1937 for RS. 1420 against the assets of deceased Das'e Gowda in the hands of deft. 1 and the properties belonging to him: the ap. peal preferred by deft. 1 against the decree was eventually dismissed on 11-9-1940; Deft, l executed a settlement deed on 22-8-1940 giving away the properties to defts. 2 and 3: in execution of the decree against deft, l the properties were sold. Pltfs. 1 and 2 as vendees from the auction purchaser filed the suit from which this appeal arises for declaration of right, possession and mesne profits alleging that the settlement deed is a sham document executed with intent to defraud the decree-holders.

( 2 ) BOTH Cts. have held that the suit is not maintainable by virtue of Section 53 (1), T.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document