SRIDHAR Vs. N REVANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs was as follows:

(3.) 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 be was in dire need of money and bad 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.