The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Gift Deeds and the application of the legal provisions under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, particularly Section 10 and Section 13, to determine the validity of the condition imposed on Revanna and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the relief sought.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellants were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. They were minors when they instituted the suit suing through their natural guardian, their paternal grandmother.

3. The case of the plaintiffs was as follows:

That the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of their great-grandfather, Muniswamappa. He had, by three separate registered Gift Deeds dated 5.6.1957 executed in favour of his wife Akkayamma and two in favour of his grandson Revannadefendant in the suit, gifted the suit properties. It is further stated that the properties were in the occupation of tenants. Muniswamappa and his wife Akkayamma had expired in the years 1960 and 1961, respectively. It is the case of the plaintiffs that under the Gift Deeds, neither Akkayamma nor Revanna had any right to alienate the suit properties as they were conferred with a limited interest to enjoy the properties during their lifetime and thereafter the properties were to devolve on the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding this limitation, defendant No.1-Revanna had proceeded to alienate the suit properties under Sale Deeds dated 7.10.1985, 8.10.1985 and 10.10.1985 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that such alienations were void and did not bind the plaintiffs. It was their case that they had a vested right immediately on their birth. The first plaintiff was born prior to the said Sale Deeds. The plaintiffs, therefore, alleged that defendant Nos.2 to 5 in collusion with the tenants in occupation of the suit properties were seeking to occupy the properties and to illegally demolish the same and therefore the plaintiffs would be deprived of their legitimate right and had proceeded to file a civil suit in O.S.No.7081/1995 and the said suit was withdrawn on 15.11.1995 with permission to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action and accordingly, the suit, out of which the present judgment and decree under appeal arises, was filed.

4. In the suit, Defendant Nos.1 to 7 had entered appearance through their counsel and filed separate written statements. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs contending that he was in dire need of money and had proceeded under the bona fide belief coupled with the legal opinion, that he had obtained at the time of sale, that under the Gift Deed there was no impediment to sell the property as the condition of non-alienation imposed on him was void and pleaded that the transactions were not fraudulent and he was misled by the legal opinion in proceeding to alienate the suit properties and undertook to reimburse the defendants by paying the sale consideration received, to them. Defendant Nos.6 and 7, who were the tenants in occupation of the properties, on the other hand, had contended that they were not aware of any of the transactions between the other defendants. They admit that defendant Nos.2 to 5, who were the purchasers from defendant No.1, had filed an eviction case and the same had attained finality in orders of eviction having been passed against them. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 had filed a common written statement questioning the bona fides of the plaintiffs and their guardian and alleged that they were apparently set-up by the vendor-defendant No.1 and were acting in tandem in seeking to avoid the sale transactions on a specious plea that there was a condition under which the property could not have been sold by defendant No.1, apart from raising other contentions. On the basis of the said pleadings, the following issues were framed.

“1) Whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiffs have got absolute right over the suit schedule properties?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No.1 has no right to alienate suit schedule property in favour of defendants No.2 to defendant No.5 and that said alienation is not binding on the plaintiffs?

3) Whether the defendants prove that condition of restraint o