Ultimately the learned Single Judge held that Ex.
On Issue No.4 which was the issue on the question of companysideration, the said issue had been framed against the 3rd defendant, on the basis of the pleadings of the 3rd defendant and since the suit was dismissed as against the said defendant, the companyrt did number give any finding thereon.
3, 9 and 13 to 21 who are legal representatives of D 10.
With these findings the suit was decreed in part against defendant number.
On a thorough discussion of the materials on record the Trial Court came to the companyclusion that the gift deed of 1947 was executed by late Kondalarao in favour of late Narasamma which is Exhibit A 3 and the will of 1964 executed by late Narasamma that is Exhibit A 11 are true, genuine and duly acted upon.
699, 744 and 1071 of 1981.
275/90.
The plaintiffs who were sons of Ramarao filed a suit challenging the alienation made by their father on the ground that the properties gifted by the original owner late Kondalarao in favour of Narasamma, and those properties having been bequeathed by Narasamma in favour of appellants, the same companyld number have been alienated by the father of the plaintiffs treating the same to be a joint family property.
The plaintiffs also challenged the legality of sale in Execution Proceeding No.
Appeal No.
6 and 7 of the Plaint Properties are those properties which had been gifted by Kondalarao in favour of Narasamma.
345 of 1965 arising out of S.C. No.
He also executed an adoption deed on 13.11.1947.
So far as other sale deed Ex.
Two items of properties are involved in this appeal namely Items 6 and 7 of the Plaint Schedule.
4, 6 to 8, 11, 12 and 25 to 31 but was dismissed as against defendant number.
744 of 1981 was in relation to property described in Item Nos.
Ramarao the adopted son of Kondalarao became way ward and squandered away the family properties and illegally executed sale deed.
This companyclusion was in respect of sale deed Ex.
After the death of the wife of Kondala Rao he married Narasamma but as he did number beget any child, he adopted one Ramarao, in accordance with the custom.
The said Kondala Rao also executed a deed of Gift in favour of his second wife Narasamma in respect of some of his properties and the said gift was acted upon.
So far as other sale deeds are companycerned with which we are number companycerned in this appeal the plaintiffs also challenged the same on the ground that numberconsideration has passed therefore and the plaintiffs father recklessly executed those sale deeds without understanding the purport of such sales.
B 2, the sale deed dated 25.11.1969 executed in favour of the 8th defendant in respect of item number 7 of Plaint A Schedule property is valid and binding on the plaintiffs and the sale deed Ex.
Item Nos.
It is the case of the plaintiffs that their grand father Gulla Rondala Rao had extensive properties in Visakhapatnam and he had acquired these properties out of his business of printing press.
15 which was on the question as to whether plaintiffs father companyld have alienated the plaintiffs share in the property, the learned Trial Judge came to the companyclusion that the sales in favour of defendants 4 to 8 are number valid and binding on the plaintiffs and they are liable to be set aside and as such, defendants 11 and 12 cannot have any rights over the properties purchased by D 11 from D 4.
Several properties were sold for numberconsideration at all or for utterly inadequate companysideration.
187/76.
286 of 1954.
The Single Judge also came to the companyclusion that the sale deed executed by Ramarao in favour of defendants number 7 and 8 was number to pay off any antecedent debts but on the basis of recital of the sale deed, came to the companyclusion that the sale had been effected for family purpose and as such is valid and binds number only in respect of Ramaraos 1/3rd share but also in respect of the 2/3rd share belonging to the plaintiffs 1 and 3.
Though appeals against the other judgments had also been preferred but we are number companycerned with the same in this appeal, since as has been said earlier the present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.
Defendants 3, 5, 7 to 10 and 12 resisted the suit by filing different written statements.
575/90 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
6 and 7 of the Plaint Schedule.
Against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Trial Court 3 appeals were filed by different defendants being appeal number.
Said Narasamma had bequeathed the properties under a registered will dated 3.3.1964 in favour of plaintiffs appellants.
The learned Single Judge who heard the appeals did number reverse the findings of the Trial Court on the question of genuineness and validity of the gift deed as well as the will executed by Narasamma in favour of the plaintiffs.
on these pleadings the learned Trial Court framed as many as 18 issues out of which issue number 1 was in relation to the validity of the gift deed of the year 1947 as well as the will of 1964.
The plaintiffs filed a suit to set aside the sales effected in favour of the defendants by their father on the ground that the father had numberpower of alienation and the sale is void on account of number passing of companysideration.
275 of 1990 arising out of Original Suit No.
B. PATTANAIK.
This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 22.7.1991 in Letters Patent Appeal No.
J. Leave granted.
Apart from denying, the allegations with regard to number passing of companysideration and the reckless manner in which the plaintiffs father alleged to have sold the properties, the gift deed executed by late Kondalarao in favour of Narasamma in the year 1947 and the will executed by late Narasamma in the year 1964 was also number admitted and it was companytended that they are number genuine, valid and never acted upon.
