D RADHA DEVI Vs. T SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 7 and 8 are the appellants. The suit is laid for partition and possession of the plaintiff's 5/6th share of the plaint A schedule properties ignoring the alienations made in favour of defendants 4 to 6. The plaint case is that the first defendant is the father, second defendant is their mother and plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendant No. 3 are brothers and the promissory notes executed by the mother on benalf of the plaintiffs under Exs. B.4 and B-2 and the consequent decrees obtained O. S. Nos. 272 of 1970 and 369 of 1971, PZxs. B-5 and B-1 respectively arc void and unenforceable. The 4th defendant is the creditor. The 5th defendant is the alienee of item 1. D-6 is the alienee of item 2. D-7 is the creditor under the promissory note Ex. B-2 who obtained decree under Ex. B-l in O. S. No. 369 of 1971. D-4 is the Creditor under Ex. B-4 who obtained the decree in O. S. No. 272 of 1970 in that case as per Ex B-5. Pending the suit the property Item 1 was sold and the same was purchased by D-7. The suit was decreed in so far as item 2 is concerned and dismissed in so far as item 3 is concerned, and they have become final as that part of the decree is not challenged.

(2.) Mow the defence is that the promissory notes Exs. B-4 and B-2 and the consequent decrees Exs. B-5 and B-1 are valid.

(3.) The Court below on this controversy framed the issues and held that the question of fraud or want of notice could not be established and the decrees are vitiated by gross negligence of the guardian and also collusion and consequently decreed the suit granting 5/6th share to the plaintiffs in item 2 of the Schedule property with a direction for profits. Against this judgment and decree, defendants 7 and 8 filed the appeal. D-8 is the legal representative of D-4. The validity of these two decrees covered by Exs. B-5 and B-i are challenged.