A BASAVARAJ Vs. KUSHAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiffs is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31-8-1983 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bellary, in O. S. No. 33/1979. The respondents were the defendants in the trial Court. The defendant-2 died during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, his legal representatives viz., the widow and two daughters of defendant-2 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased 2nd defendant.

(2.) The appellants filed the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/3rd share in the plaint 'A' Schedule properties. 'A' Schedule consisted of the following two items of properties :

(3.) The 2nd defendant remained ex parte. He did not contest the suit. It was only the 1st defendant (alienee) who contested the suit. In his written statement he, inter alia, contended that the sale dated 29-1-1973 alienating item No. 1 of 'A' schedule was effected for legal necessity in that it was effected for discharging the antecedent debts and also for depositing money to obtain Bharath Beedi Agency; that the sale was for the benefit of the joint family and it was for proper consideration. It was also contended that the second sale also was supported by legal necessity and it was for the purpose of maintaining the family and also for educating the children. Thus it was contended by the 1st defendant that as the two sales in question were effected for legal necessity and for the benefit of the family, the plaintiffs were not entitled to have their share in the suit schedule 'A' properties.