P BALAJI Vs. B VENKATRAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGEMENT :- Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants. The Ist respondent, after becoming major, the 2nd respondent being minor represented by his brother the Ist respondent, laid the suit but subsequently he was declared as major by order dt. June 29, 1977 in I.A. No. 392 of 1977. The suit was for possession of plaint A and B schedule properties and to eject the 1st defendant from plaint A Schedule property and the appellants from plaint B Schedule property consisting of one acre. The trial Court granted decree, as against it, the appellants have filed this appeal.

(2.) The admitted case is, that one Bathina Krishna Murthy, the 7th defendant is their father and Bathina Nandeeswaramma the 4th defendant is mother. The father executed a gift deed, Ex. A-3 dt. Feb. 21, 1956, gifting over the plaint schedule property and other properties in favour of the respondent, appointing their mother as guardian. Subsequently, the mother executed on behalf of the respondents, the contract of sale dated February 9, 1964 under Ex. B-7 alienating the B Schedule property, in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the appellants for a valuable consideration of Rs. 2,800/- and received Rs. 300/- as advance and inducted the appellants' predecessor-in-title, in possession. Thus, under the contract of sale, the appellants' predecessor-in-title and subsequently the appellants continued to be in possession of B schedule property. They have also improved the land. The appellants are always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.

(3.) The respondents laid the suit on the ground that the mother was not a legal guardian since their father Krishnamurthy is alive. The property is a joint family property. She is not a manager, there is no legal necessity and accordingly she cannot alienate the property. No permission of the Court to alienate the property was obtained. The sale is not for the benefit of the estate of the minors. Thereby she has no manner of right to alienate the property. The appellants are trespassers. Accordingly, the sale is invalid and it is not binding on them.