VASANT RAO Vs. FAROOQ ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment and the Decree of the learned District Judge, Adilabad, (Mr.V.V.S. Krishna Murthy) in O.S.No.35 of 1971 dated 5-11-1982 have been the subject of assailment in this appeal. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the Suit. The suit was dismissed

(2.) Defendant No.3 is the father and Defendant No.4 is that mother of the plaintiffs. The suit is filed for declaration of title and possession of the suit property which is described in the suit schedule as Survey No.764 of Mudhole with an extent of Acs. 34-14 guntas of land The plaintiffs claim their title to the suit property; while they were the minors, dieir mother Defendant No.4 alienated the suit property in favour of Defendant No. 1 under the suit sale deed Ex.A.2 equivalent to Ex.B.1 dated 16-10-1956 without consideration, without any legal necessity, under the pressure and influence of their fadier, defendant No.3, who was very easy going and gay in his style of life. They pleaded that such an alienation by Defendant No.4 is not binding upon them and they are entitled to continue to have the title of the suit property and also the possession of the same and since the defendant No. 1 did not concede to their request, they have to file the suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit property. It appears that defendant No. 1 sold that suit property to defendant No.2 under the registered sale deed Ex.B.l dated 5-3-1968 for a consideration of Rs.5,000/- and put him into possession of the property. Since defendant No. 1 died during the pendency of the proceedings, defendants No.5 to 7 have been brought on record as his L.Rs. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit, whereas defendant Nos.3 and 4 remained ex parte. The L.Rs. of defendant No.1 have not filed any separate written statement but they have adopted the contentions of defendants No. 1 and 2.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 have denied the plaint allegations that the suit sale deed Ex.A. 2 is without consideration, that it is not binding on the plaintiffs, that it was obtained under the pressure and influence of defendant No.3, the father of the plaintiffs, that it is not for legal necessity and that it is not binding on the plaintiffs. They have contended that the sale deed was executed for a valuable consideration of Rs.5,000 which was paid to defendant No.4 on behalf of the plaintiffs, it was for legal necessity of the plaintiffs and to the benefit of their estate, that it is binding on them, that defendant No.1 was put into possession of the property which he is continuing and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief claimed in the suit They also challenged that the suit is barred by limitation, it is not maintainable, it has no cause of action and that it is liable to be dismissed