The burden of proof for legal necessity in property sales involving minors lies with the seller, and failure to provide evidence invalidates such sales.

JUDGMENT :

(N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Challenging the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court granting preliminary decree for dividing the suit properties into three equal shares and allot plaintiffs 2 and 3 each with 1/3^rd share; also setting aside the sale deed dated 19.09.2016 executed in favour of the second defendant in respect of the second and third plaintiffs' undivided 2/3^rd shares, the present appeal has been filed.

2. Brief background of the appeal is as follows:

2.a. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the minor children of the first plaintiff and the first defendant. They are represented by the first plaintiff, who is the wife of the first defendant. According to them, the suit properties are ancestral properties of first defendant's father and the same was allotted to the first defendant in a partition deed dated 02.07.2013. According to them, the first defendant started wavered life and addicted to alcohol and developed many bad habits and became spend thrift person and did not bother about plaintiffs welfare. The second defendant made use of weakness of the first defendant and fraudulently obtained sale deed on 19.09.2016 in her favour in respect of 30 cents in S.No.424. The said sale deed is a sham and nominal one and never acted acted upon and not binding upon the rights of the minor plaintiff.

2.b. The first defendant filed written statement admitting sale of 30 cents.According to him, sale was made not only on his behalf but also on behalf of his minor children for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.1,88,000/- for his urgent family expenses to clear petty debts and for education and maintenance of his minor children and delivered possession by way of sale deed dated 19.09.2016 which is binding on the plaintiffs. The second defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same by constructing asbestos sheet house and obtained EB connection and patta is also transferred to her name. The first plaintiff due to some misunderstanding deserted him and living separately for the past three years and children are in the care and custody of both husband and wife. The first defendant met with an accident in the year 2009 ad his left hand was amputated and for the legal necessity and to maintain his children and for their educational expenses, he sold the property as he has lost his earning capacity.

2.c. The second defendant filed a written statement contending that she purchased the properties from first defendant on 19.9.2016 by way of Sale deed dated 19.09.2016 for valuable consideration and the sale deed is binding the plaintiffs. She has constructed asbestos sheet house and got patta transferred and also obtained E.B. connection. The first plaintiff deserted the first defendant and living separately for the past three years and second and third plaintiff's are under the care and custody of both first defendant and first plaintiff. The first defendant sold the property as he lost his earning capacity and for the maintenance and welfare of the children. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of setting aside the Sale deed dated 19.9.2016. Hence the suit has to be dismissed.

2.d. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings, framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff's are entitled to partition as sought for?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of sale deed dated 19.09.2016 as null and void

3. Whether the first defendant sold property under sale deed dated 19.09.2016 for legal necessity and the same is binding upon the plaintiffs?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as sought for?

5. To what relief pl