4, 6 to 8, 11, 12 and 25 to 31 but was dismissed as against defendant number.
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 D11 from D 4.
699, 744 and 1071 of 1981.
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 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.
With these findings the suit was decreed in part against defendant number.
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.
744 of 1981 was in relation to property described in Item Nos.
This companyclusion was in respect of sale deed Ex.
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.
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.
Ramarao the adopted son of Kondalarao became way ward and squandered away the family properties and illegally executed sale deed.
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.
Item Nos.
It is the case of the plaintiffs that their grand father Gulla Kondala Rao had extensive properties in Visakhapatnam and he had acquired these properties out of his business of printing press.
Several properties were sold for numberconsideration at all or for utterly inadequate companysideration.
286 of 1954.
275 of 1990 arising out of Original Suit No.
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 l/3rd share but also in respect of the 2/3rd share belonging to the plaintiffs 1 and 3.
187/76.
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.
which was issue number 11, the Trial Court answered in favour of the plaintiff and held that late Ramarao was addicted to the drinking habit and number leading a good life.
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.
3, 9 and 13 to 21 who are legal representatives of D 10.
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 Issue No.
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.
7.1991 in Letters Patent Appeal 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.
J. Leave granted.
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 ll are true, genuine and duly acted upon.
