P CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Vs. VAKA RACHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the decree and judgment made in A.S- No.1085 of 1983, partly reversing the decree and judgment in O.S.No.86 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cuddapah.

(2.) The appellant in L.P.A.No.133 of 1991 is the plaintiff, while the legal representative of the first defendant is the appellant in L.P.A.No.39 of 1992, The parties in these appeals will be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The appellant in L.P.A. No.133 of 1991 filed O.S.No.86 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cuddapah for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and for separate possession of one such share together with mesne profits. The defendant Nos.1 & 2 therein, are the alienee and his father respectively. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule properties are the properties of his joint family of which himself, his father D-2 and his grandfather - P. Gangireddy are co-parceners. During the life time of his grandfather, his uncle, one Gangireddy, got divided from the joint family and went away. His paternal grandfather, Gangireddy died about eight years back and on his death, his properties devolved upon the members of the joint family viz., plaintiff's father, the second defendant and the plaintiff by survivorship. As the second son of late Gangireddy having separated from the joint family, had no interest in the property left by late Gangireddy. However, even during the life time of his grandfather, his father, the second defendant had alienated the plaint schedule properties in favour of the first defendant while he was a minor. There was no legal necessity to alienate the properties. The alienations were made for illegal and immoral purposes and as such, they are not binding on him. The second defendant remained ex parte and the first defendant contested the suit. It is his plea that he had purchased the plaint schedule properties under two registered sale deeds for valuable consideration from the second defendant who was in management of the joint family, for agricultural purposes and also for the marriage of his daughter and as such, the alienations are binding on the plaintiff.