C S PAUL Vs. C S PUSHPARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the judgment and decree in OS No. 110 of 1981, dated 21-8-1987 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor is under challenge.

(2.) The parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

(3.) Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit-schedule properties. Defendants 1 and 2 are brothers. Defendant No. 3 is their mother. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of Defendant No. 1 Plaintiff No. 3 is the son of Defendant No. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was acquired by their grand father, Pakala Chinnaiah. That after his death, the 3rd defendant was looking after the assets of the family. It is pleaded that Defendants 1 and 2 were addicted to vices, particularly, of consuming and selling illicit liquor and taking advantage of the illicit habits of Defendants 1 and 2, Defendant Nos.4 and 5 got certain nominal sale deeds executed in their favour in respect of the suit schedule property. They pleaded that the sales were not for family necessity and that they are not binding on them. They contended that the sales have taken place when they were minors.