Alienation held being on the family.

This second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur reversing the decree of the District Munsif, Guntur, in their favour. The reliefs claimed in the plaint are a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing their possession or in the alternative for possession and alternatively for division of the suit properties and allotment of four-fifths share to them. There was prayer for mesne profits also.

The material facts are these: The plaintiffs who were minors at the time of the filing of this suit are the sons of the first defendant. The first defendant and the plaintiffs constitute a Hindu joint family of which the first defendant is the manager. The family owned considerable properties including the suit properties. The properties in suit were given to the adoptive mother of the first defendant in lieu of her maintenance. On the and of February, 1944, the first defendant entered into an agreement for the purchase of lands in a village called Kakumanu and paid an advance of Rs. 450. He had to get a sum of Rs. 700 from the vendors. In order to find the balance of the purchase money he sold the lands in question under Exhibit D-2 to the second defendant on 5th February, 1944 for a sum of Rs. 2,000. The lands purchased by the first defendant were of the extent of 5 acres, and 3 cents while the lands sold by the first defendant were of the extent of 3 acres. Subsequently the first defendant sold three acres 53 cents and retained for the family 1 acre and 50 cents. Shortly after this the plaintiffs instituted the present suit represented by their mother as their guardian alleging that the sale by the lather under Exhibit D-21 in favour of the second defendant was a sham and collusive transaction not supported by consideration and that, in any event, the sale did not bind their four-fifths share in the family property as it was not for purposes binding upon the family.

The first defendant remained ex parte. The suit was contested by the second and third defendants, the latter being a lessee from the second defendant. The chief defences to the suit are: that the sale was fully supported by consideration and was a bona fide transaction and it was binding on all the members of the family as it was in the interests of the joint family to enter into the transaction impugned.

The trial Court upheld the plea of the second defendant so far as the genuineness of the transaction was concerned but it agreed with the defendants that the sale in question was not one that conferred any benefit on the family and, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff and decreed the suit for partition and allotment of four-fifths share in the suit properties to the plaintiff. The second defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the District Munsif. The plaintiff acquiesced in the finding of the trial Court as regards the payment of consideration and that finding has become final. The Subordinate Judge reversing the decree of the trial Court held that the sale in question could be supported both on the ground of antecedent debt and benefit to the estate. The plaintiffs who are aggrieved by this decision have preferred this second appeal.

In support of this appeal Mr. Ramachandra Rao contended that the findings of the lower appellate Court both as regards the nature of the debt for the discharge of which the suit transaction was entered into and as to the benefit conferred on the family cannot be supported. It was urged by him that the debt incurred by the first defendant for purchasing the lands in Kakumanu cannot be an antecedent debt for the reason that there is no antecedency in fact, There seems to be great force in this argument of Mr. Ramachandra Rao. Remembering the shortness of the interval between the date of the agreement for the purchase of the lands at Kakumanu and the sale of the suit lands, it seems to be difficult to predicate that the debt was antecedently incurred a