MEDIKENDURI Vs. KATA VENKATAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the Sub ordinate 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 4/5 share to them. There was prayer for mesne profits also.

(2.) 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 plaintiff's 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 2nd 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 Ex. D. 2 to the second defendant on 5-2-1944 for a sum of Rs. 2000. 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 father under Ex. D. 2 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.

(3.) 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.