PATHA PEDDA ELLIALI Vs. PALAGILI GANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal raises u simple question of law. The suit Out of which the second appeal arises was filed by the first Respondent herein for a declaration that the alienation, elected by the third Defendant, the widow of Ramayya, in favour of her son -in -law the second Defendant (the husband of the first Defendant) was not valid and binding upon the reversioners of the estate of Ramayya. The alienation in favour of the son -in -law was effected under Exhibit B -1 dated 30th January, 1943. The second Defendant sold the property in his turn in 27th September, 1943, in favour of the Appellant hereunder Exhibit R -2. The recital in the sale deed Exhibit B -1 is that the sale was effected for discharging the debts. It does not speedily whether the debts were those contracted by the husband, Ramayya, during his life -time or the debts incurred by the widow alter his death. While the Trial Court upheld the alienation under Exhibit B -1, the District Judge of Cuddappah reversed his judgment. He held that, in view of the admission made by the second Defendant he did not make any enquiries and know who the creditors were, and that the necessity for the alienation was not made out.

(2.) THE law is well settled that if a sale is impeached the burden lies on the alienee to prove either that there was legal necessity in fact or that he made bona fide enquiries as to the existence of the necessity. As it is found by the District Judge that the alienation was in favour of the son -in -law and that he did not make any bona fide enquiries as to whose debts had to be satisfied, the alienation was invalid. The Appellant, who claims from the son -in -law and who had knowledge of the circumstances under which the sale was effected in favour of the son -in -law, does not stand on any higher footing. So, the appeal consequently fails.

(3.) IT is clear from the facts of the case that the Appellant -alienee has been the possession from 27 -9 -1943, up to date. for a period of over 12 year's. He, therefore acquired prescriptive title by adverse possession as against the widow. There is no force in the contention that the alienation in favour of the son -in -law was a nominal one and that he was holding the properly on behalf of the widow. The son -in -law had disposed of the property on 27 -9 -1943, in favour of the Appellant, and he has been in continuous and under reputed possession of the property ever since that date and prescribed title as against. the widow. The observations of Viswanatha Sastri, J., at p. 989 (of Andhra,WR): (at p. 281 of AT 1.1) 'in Venkayanima v. Veeraiyya, 1936 AnWR 988: ((S) : AIR 1957 AP 280) (A), would directly apply to facts of this case, and the observations tire as follows: