MAHADU UKARDA DHANGAR Vs. TULSABAI NAMDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by defendants Nos. 3 to 7 to a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for a declaration that certain alienations made by their father Baliram, defendant No. 1, in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 19 were not binding on their shares and for partition and possession of their (plaintiffs') shares in the property in suit. Plaintiff No. 1 died during the pendency of the appeal and is now represented by his legal representatives, respondents Nos.1(a) to 1(c).

(2.) THE facts relevant, for the purpose of this appeal and which are not disputed before us are as follows: At the partition between defendant No. 1 and his brother, which was effected in the year 1926, about 100 acres of land, some houses and some movable property fell to the share of defendant No. 1. Between the years 1930 -1940 he alienated the bulk of the property. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 was given to vices and the alienations, which were challenged by them in the suit out of which this appeal arises, were made by defendant No. 1 for illegal and immoral purposes and were consequently not binding upon them. It may be mentioned that at the date of the suit defendant No. 1 had three sons though only two of them had joined in the suit. The third son was eventually joined as defendant No. 20 in the suit. Along with him was also joined as defendant No. 2.1, Laxmibai, the wife of defendant No. 1. The suit was contested by all the alienees. 'We are, however, concerned only with the case of defendants Nos. 3 to 7.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 7 claims under two sale -deeds, one is exh. 7 -D -1 dated January 21, 1936, whereunder a portion of S. No. 75 of Kalambeshwar was sold to him for a consideration of Rs. 633 -8 -0 and the other is exh. 7 -D -2, dated January 3, 1939, whereunder the remaining of S. No. 75 was sold to him for a consideration of Rs. 500. This defendant is appellant No. 5 in the appeal.