DEVINENI SUSEELA Vs. NELAPATI VENKATA SIVARAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant who was unsuccessful in both the Courts below is the appellant in this second appeal.

(2.) The plaintiffs-respondents, filed the suit in forma pauperis for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property, together with past and future profits, against the defendant challenging the sale-deed (Exhibit B-1) dated 22nd February, 1965 executed by their mother Swarajyalakshmi, for herself and as the guardian of the plaintiffs who were then- minors in favour of the defendant alleging that their mother could not exercise the powers of a natural guardian as their father Lakshmi Ramanayya, is alive and that the sale deed was not supported by consideration, legal necessity or to the benefit of the estate of the minors.

(3.) The defendant alleged that the plaintiffs' mother was giving out that her husband was a person of unsound mind and mentally unfit to act as the guardian of his children, that she alone was acting as the de jure and de facto guardian of her children, that she gave out that the plaintiffs had no means to maintain themselves and were under pressus from creditors, that she purchased the suit site under Exhibit B-3 dated 14th June, 1963 from P.W. 2 for Rs. 2,200 that she could not pay the entire sale consideration and so she executed a pronote for the unpaid purchase money in favour of P.W. 2 and in order to discharge the said debt and for the betterment and benefit to the plaintiffs, the suit site was offered for sale to the defendant for the enhanced price of Rs. 2,500, and the defendant accepted the same and entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs' mother and discharged the pronote debt of Rs. 481.06Ps. payable to P.W. 2. She also alleged that the plaintiffs' mother in her personal capacity and as the guardian of the plaintiffs executed the sale-deed of her own free will and volition, and that the balance of the purchase price under Exhibit B-l was agreed to be paid to any vendor from whom the plaintiffs' mother might purchase other immovable property, and on those terms, she executed the sale deed Exhibit B-l. It was further alleged that neither the plaintiffs' mother nor their guardian ever asked the defendant to pay the sale consideration to any vendor of theirs or expressed readiness to take money by furnishing proper security and therefore the balance of consideration remained with the defendant. The defendant further pleaded that she spent Rs. 6,000 for improving the land and for constructing a thatched house and that the plaintiffs were liable to pay the value of the improvements.