KHAJA MOHADIN Vs. TAHERA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the appellants were the plaintiffs in the trial court represented by their guardian maternal grandfather b. Mohamed saheb. It may be stated that the 1st plaintiff was 11 years of age and the 2nd plaintiff 8 years of age when the suit was filed in the year 1973. The respondents in this appeal were the defendants in the same order in the suit gbousc bi the 3rd defendant is their mother. Defendant 4 is the father. The 3rd defendant purchased the suit property on 21-3-1964 for Rs. 1,000/- for herself and her two minor sons the present appellants. On 9-2-1970 under ex. D-3 the same defendant 3 mother sold away the same property to the 2nd defendant meenakshamma for Rs. 2,000/-. Later under ex. D-2 the suit property was sold by defendant 2 to defendant 1 for the same consideration, namely, Rs. 2,000/-. Later it appears defendants 3 and 4 changed the character of their possession to one of tenants under defendant 2 after defendant 3 sold the property to her. Hrc No. 14/1972, on the file of the munsiff court, bellary, came to be filed by the 1st defendant against defendants 3 & 4 for decree for eviction and defendants 3 and 4 suffered a decree for eviction. The present suit came to be filed by the minor plaintiffs through their next friend the maternal-grand-father that the sales are not binding on their share and even so the decree for eviction in hrc No. 14/1972. It was specifically averred that the 3rd defendant acted all these days possibly at the instance and instigation of the 4th defendant in a manner detrimental to their interests and even the 4th defendant without caring for their interests entered into various documents including lease deed in favour of the 1st defendant. Thus in the suit they prayed for partition and possession of their 2/3rd share in the suit property and for direction that they be put in actual possession of their 2/3rd share.

(2.) resisting the suit defendants 1 and 2 justified the sales in their favour. The nextfriend p. Mohammed saheb had only lent his name for the purpose of the suit to fight an unholy litigation. This is a collusive suit in as much as defendants 3 and 4 have colluded with the present plaintiffs in filing the suit. They maintained that defendants 3 and 4 paid the price when the property was purchased'in the year 1964. Defendant 2 further contended that the 4th defendant got his sons' name nominally in the sale deed dated 21-3-1964 and in fact the suit property belonged exclusively to the 3rd & the 4th defendants. Rest of the averments are not quite material for the disposal of this appeal. Defendants 3 and 4 did not contest the suit.

(3.) the trial court addressed it self only to two issues and found that defendantshad succeeded in proving that the sale deed in favour of the minor plaintiffs dated 21-3-1964 was a nominal one and in fact defendants 3 and 4 were the real owners of the suit house. As far as the frame of the suit is concerned it found in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit thus came to be dismissed holding that the plaintiffs have no interest in the suit property. The first appeal also came to be dismissed, the first appellate court concurring with the findings of the trial court.