Ramaprasada Rao, J.-The first Defendant in O.S. No. 80 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore is the appellant.

2. The second defendant and the four minor plaintiffs constituted a Hindu undivided family. The second defendant is the son of one Thandavaraya Mudaliar who besides his only son, namely, the second defendant, had two daughters. He died in 1958 leaving behind him Schedule A properties which are the only properties available in the family. After Thandavaraya’s death, under the Hindu Succession Act, the two daughters also had a right in the properties so left by their father. It appears that the daughters wanted their share in their father’s property. Though for the purpose of enumeration, there are two items in the A Schedule, it is conceded that the second item in the A-Schedule is neither valuable nor useful property. In fact, the parties went to trial as if the one property which was available for partition and which was valuable indeed was item 1 of the A Schedule. When the daughters of Thandavaraya demanded from the second defendant their legitimate share in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, the second defendant had no option except to raise a loan on the only available valuable property of the family, namely item 1 of Schedule A with which we are concerned in the suit. Consequently, alter obtaining a release from the sisters under Exhibit B-14 dated 4th September 1960, the second defendant as father-manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his four minor sons who are the plaintiffs in the action mortgaged the said pro. perty in favour of the husband of the first defendant under Exhibit B-15 and borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,250. It is common ground that this amount was intended to be paid over to the two daughters of Thandavaraya in lull quit of their claims against the family property. After effecting a mortgage under Exhibit B-15 on 5th September, 1960, it appears that the second defendant was paying interest regularly to the mortgagee. But a few months thereafter, the second defendant thought it wise to sell the property which was a shop whose dimensions were 13’ x 27’ so that the mortgage which is in the nature of an antecedent debt could be paid off, interest avoided and the balance of consideration utilised for the purpose of purchasing a house and for starting a business. With this object in view, the second defendant sought for a purchaser and finding that the mortgagee’s wife, namely, the first defendant was interested in purchasing the shop, which is obviously a small one, negotiated and agreed to sell the same for a sum and consideration of Rs. 10,000. Under Exhibit B-1 dated 24th February, 1961 the suit property was sold and the first defendant as purchaser reserved with herself the necessary funds to pay off the daughters of Thandavaraya and paid the balance of Rs. 6,000 in cash before the Sub-Registrar of Assurances. It is not in dispute that the recitals in Exhibit B-15 were: (a) Rs. 3,250 was reserved with the first defendant for discharge of the mortgage debt under Exhibit B-l5 ; and (b) a sum of Rs. 750 was paid to the second defendant by the first defendant for family expenses and the balance sum of Rs. 6,000 was paid to the second defendant by the first defendant in the presence of the Sub-Registrar for purchasing a house and for starting business.

3. The plaintiffs as minors have come up to this Court questioning the sale made by their father and in this action,they are represented by their mother. The plaintiffs’ case is that there was no legal necessity for the sale of the property so urgently and in indecent haste by their father when the interest was being regularly paid to the mortgagee and when there was no pressure from the mortgagee in the matter of the discharge of the same. The plaintiffs would also say that the sale was not for family benefit and that the consideration paid thereunder was grossly inadequate. As usual in such cases, the second defendant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document