Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Koneru Bhaskara Rao vs Yarlagadda Haritha on 2 May, 2025
1
VGKR, J.
sa_92_2012 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Second Appeal No.92 of 2012 Judgment:
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 04-8-2011 in A.S.No.80 of 2007 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna District, in setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 24-11-2006 in O.S.No.1077 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in O.S.No.1077 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.
3. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 initiated action in O.S.No.1077 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, with a prayer for the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 25-6-2001 is void and is not binding on the plaintiffs and for costs of the suit.
4. The learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal suit before the first appellate Court. The learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, allowed the first appeal with costs by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal.
5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.
6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.1077 of 2002, is as follows:
2VGKR, J.
sa_92_2012
(a) It is pleaded that the plaintiffs are the sister and brother and their mother, by name Swarna Kumari, died on 12-8-1998 under suspicious circumstances and in that connection, there was police investigation and even post-mortem of the plaintiffs' mother was conducted at the Government General Hospital, Guntur and in that connection, the plaintiffs' father was taken into police custody for some time. Thereafter, to avoid unnecessary police interference, the elders of the family effected an arrangement on 19-8-1998 and thereby the plaintiffs' father, by name Rajeswara Rao, agreed to execute an agreement to convey his 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property, which is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and their father and accordingly, he executed an agreement of sale dated 19-8-1998 after receiving the consideration amount of Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiffs' maternal grandfather, by name Chanumolu Janardhana Rao and the plaintiffs' father agreed to execute and register a regular sale deed as and when demanded by the plaintiffs.
(b) It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs' father died on 05-8-2001 due to excessive drinking and during his life time, the defendant obtained a sale deed from him on 25-6-2001 in respect of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property while the plaintiffs' father was in an intoxicated state of mind and as such, he never knew the nature of the document and as such, he signed and registered the said sale deed dated 25-6-2001 in favour of the defendant and as such, it is void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
(c) It is further pleaded that as the sale deed dated 25-6-2001 is subsequent to the agreement of sale, dated 19-8-1998, the sale deed is void on that ground also and does not bind the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs even got issued a legal notice to the defendant but of no avail. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for the relief of declaration that the sale deed in favour of the defendant is void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
7. The defendant filed written statement denying the contents of plaint averments and further contended as follows:
3VGKR, J.
sa_92_2012
(a) It is contended that the plaintiffs' mother, by name Swarna Kumari, borrowed a sum of Rs.38,000/- from one Gurrala Surendra Reddy of Hyderabad on 30-6-1998 under a pronote to the knowledge of every one including the minor plaintiffs, their father and also their grandfather and after her death, her properties devolved upon her husband Rajeswara Rao and her children i.e., the plaintiffs herein equally. Therefore, the plaintiffs and their father are equally liable to discharge the debt due by the plaintiffs' mother.
In order to discharge the debt that was contacted by the said Swarna Kumari during her life time, item No.1 of the plaint schedule property was sold away to this defendant for a valuable consideration of Rs.45,000/- and the said sale deed was executed by the plaintiffs' father on his behalf and also on behalf of the minor children and out of the said sale consideration amount, a sum of Rs.42,000/- was paid to the creditor, by name G. Surendra Reddy, towards full settlement of the pronote debt of the plaintiffs' mother and the remaining sum of Rs.3,000/- was paid to the plaintiffs' father and he received the same on his behalf and on behalf of the minor plaintiffs. As such, item No.1 of the plaint schedule property was sold to the defendant for discharge of the debt due by the plaintiffs' deceased mother. Therefore, the defendant is a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration and the said sale deed is legally valid.
(b) It is further contended that the said agreement of sale is not legal and valid. The plaintiffs being minors, the plaintiffs' grandfather being not the natural guardian, has to obtain necessary permission of the Court for acting as a guardian and to institute a suit on behalf of the minor plaintiffs and without such permission, the suit is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, framed the following issues for trial:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as prayed for ? and (2) To what relief ?4
VGKR, J.
sa_92_2012
9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-7 were marked.
10. The learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.80 of 2007 before the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, wherein, the following points came up for consideration.
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that the sale deed dated 25-6-2001 is void and is not binding on the plaintiffs ?
(2) Whether the decree and judgment dated 24-11-2006 in O.S.No.1077 of 2002 passed by the trial Court warrant any interference in this appeal ? and (3) To what relief ?
11. The learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendant/respondent and in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants and allowed the appeal suit filed by the plaintiffs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.1077 of 2002 filed the present second appeal before this Court.
12. On hearing both side counsels at the time of admission of the second appeal, on 26-3-2012, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, framed the following substantial questions of law:
(1) Whether the maternal grandfather of the minor plaintiffs was competent to file the said suit on behalf of the minor plaintiffs without seeking any relief of appointing him as a guardian to the minor plaintiffs ?5
VGKR, J.
sa_92_2012 (2) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is against to the provisions of Order 32 of CPC and that the suit is not maintainable ?
(3) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant is maintainable basing on an unregistered agreement of sale for which no specific performance was obtained nor any sale deed was obtained by the plaintiff ?
(4) Whether the burden of proof in a suit for declaration seeking the relief of declaration declaring the registered sale deed as not true and valid lies on the plaintiffs or on the defendant ? and (5) Whether the finding of the 1st appellate Court that the failure of the defendant to prove possession over the property will render the registered sale deed obtained by him as void and not binding on the plaintiffs is sustainable ?
13. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs 1 and 2.
14. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence.
In the case of Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh1, the Apex Court held as follows:
"The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate Court which was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature."
In the case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar 2, the Apex Court held as follows:
1AIR 1993 SC 398 2 AIR 1999 SC 471 6 VGKR, J.
sa_92_2012 "The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence."
15. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the plaintiffs' maternal grandfather was not competent to file the suit on behalf of the minor plaintiffs without seeking any relief of appointing him as guardian to the minor plaintiffs and the present suit is not at all maintainable in view of the provisions of Order XXXII of C.P.C.
16. In the plaint itself, it was recited that both the plaintiffs are minors and they are in the custody of maternal grandfather, the same is undisputed by the defendant. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs' mother died on 12-8-1998 under suspicious circumstances and post-mortem of the plaintiffs' mother was held at the Government General Hospital, Guntur and further, the plaintiffs' father was under police custody. The undisputed case of both the parties is that the plaintiffs' mother died on 12-8-1998 and from the date of death of plaintiffs' mother, the plaintiffs are under the custody of their maternal grandfather and later on 05-8-2001 the minor plaintiffs' father died.
17. It is not in dispute that item No.1 of the suit schedule property was given originally to the plaintiffs' mother by way of registered gift deed on 30-5-1988 when the plaintiffs' mother was alive and the plaintiffs' mother was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and she died intestate on 12-8-1998 by leaving the minor plaintiffs and their father. Therefore, the minor plaintiffs and their father succeeded 1/3rd share each by way of natural succession. It is also an undisputed fact that the plaintiffs' father died on 05-8-2001 and by the date of filing of the suit in the year 2002, the minor plaintiffs' mother and father are no more. The plaintiffs being minors 7 VGKR, J.
sa_92_2012 by the date of suit, got filed the present suit through their maternal grandfather since their parents are no more. Both the plaintiffs are declared as majors during the pendency of the suit and both the plaintiffs prosecuted the suit proceeding from the date of attaining majority during the pendency of the suit and the plaintiffs' maternal grandfather was discharged from the guardianship of the plaintiffs. It was suggested to P.W.1 in the cross-examination by the learned counsel for defendant that the suit is not maintainable. The minor plaintiffs themselves have no capacity to file the suit. Since the plaintiffs' parents are no more, the minor plaintiffs got filed the suit through their maternal grandfather. The first appellate Court gave finding that Rule 1 of Order XXXII of CPC merely contemplates that a suit by minor shall be represented by his next friend, but it does not specify that the said next friend has to obtain permission of the Court or is to be appointed as a guardian of the Court, represented the said minor. For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to accept the contention of the defendant that the suit is not maintainable.
18. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the suit for declaration that the registered sale deed said to have been executed in favour of the defendant by the minor plaintiffs' father is not yet valid. As seen from the material on record, item No.1 of the suit schedule property was gifted to the minor plaintiffs' mother under a registered gift deed and she died intestate in the year 1998 by leaving her husband and minor plaintiffs 1 and 2 and therefore, the minor plaintiffs and husband of Swarna Kumari succeeded the property of Swarna Kumari. Admittedly, both the minor plaintiffs are in the custody of maternal grandfather from the date of death of their mother, which was happened on 12-8-1998. As stated supra, it is the case of both the parties that the plaintiffs' mother died under suspicious circumstances, post- mortem was held in the Government General Hospital, Guntur and a crime was also registered and the minor plaintiffs' father was taken into custody by the police. The date of alleged sale deed said to have been executed by the minor plaintiffs' father is 25-6-2001. The plaintiffs' father, after two years and 8 VGKR, J.
sa_92_2012 ten months from the date of death of minor plaintiffs' mother, alienated the undivided share of the minor plaintiffs without obtaining permission from the Court.
19. The learned counsel for appellant/defendant would contend that the minor plaintiffs' father alienated item No.1 of the suit schedule property to discharge the debt borrowed by the minor plaintiffs' mother, by name Swarna Kumari. As on the date of the alleged sale deed, both the plaintiffs are minors and the plaintiffs are under the custody of maternal grandfather. As per Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, a natural guardian of the property of Hindu before dispose of any immovable property of the minor must seek permission of the Court. In this case, no such permission was obtained by the minor plaintiffs' father. Therefore, the minor plaintiffs' father is not competent to dispose of the undivided 2/3rd share of the minor plaintiffs under the registered sale deed in favour of the appellant.
20. The law is well settled that ordinarily, law does not envisage a natural guardian of the undivided interest of a Hindu minor in joint family property. The natural guardian of the property of a Hindu minor, other than the undivided interest in joint family property, he is alone contemplated under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, whereunder his powers and duties are defined. Section 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act carves out an exception to the rule that should there be no adult member of the joint family in management of the joint family property, in which the minor has an undivided interest, a guardian may be appointed; but ordinarily no guardian shall be appointed for such undivided interest of the minor. The adult member of the family in the management of the Joint Hindu Family property may be a male or a female, not necessarily the Karta. Under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, a natural guardian of the property of the Hindu minor, before he disposes of any immovable property of the minor, must seek permission of the Court. As stated supra, 9 VGKR, J.
sa_92_2012 both the plaintiffs are in the custody of their maternal grandfather by the date of alleged sale deed under which the minor plaintiffs' father alleged to have been executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant/defendant. It is also relevant to say that as per the recitals in the sale deed, an amount of Rs.3,000/- was only paid by the appellant to the minor plaintiffs' father and it was also further recited in the sale deed that the minor plaintiffs' mother borrowed a sum of Rs.38,000/- on 30-5-1998 and after discharging the debt borrowed by the minor plaintiffs' mother from out of the sale consideration of Rs.45,000/-, an amount of Rs.3,000/- was only paid to the minor plaintiffs' father. It is also relevant to say that the appellant/defendant is scribe of the alleged pronote transaction and one of the attestors is none other than the appellant's wife and another attestor is none other than the appellant's tenant and the alleged creditor under the alleged pronote is an employee working in the office of the appellant. But for the reasons best known to the appellant, he failed to examine the creditor of the pronote as a witness to prove the discharge of alleged pronote debt.
21. The learned counsel for appellant would draw the attention of this Court that the plaintiffs' mother borrowed an amount of Rs.38,000/- under the pronote dated 30-6-1998 and to discharge the said debt, the minor plaintiffs' father alienated item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and discharged the said debt to one G. Surendra Reddy. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the said pronote is a rank forged one. As seen from the material on record, the purchaser in the sale deed i.e., the defendant is none other than the scribe of the pronote, one of the attestors in the said pronote is the appellant's wife and another attestor is the appellant's tenant. As per the case of the appellant, the said Surendra Reddy is working in the office of appellant and he is having close acquaintance with the said Surendra Reddy, but the defendant did not examine the said Surendra Reddy. As per the own case of the defendant, the creditor Surendra Reddy is an employee in their office and he also informed about the death of Swarna Kumari to Surendra Reddy, but no 10 VGKR, J.
sa_92_2012 legal notice was issued by Surendra Reddy to the legal representatives of Swarna Kumari till the date of the alleged sale deed. As stated supra, the alleged sale deed said to have been obtained after a lapse of more than two years from the date of death of Swarna Kumari. Therefore, the borrowing of amount by Swarna Kumari from Surendra Reddy is highly doubtful.
22. The learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on a judgment of the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Patamata Seshagiri Rao v. Pamidimukkala Sree Ramachandra Rao 3 wherein it is held as follows:
"11. ... ... ... It is the settled position that under Hindu Law the father has special powers of alienating coparcenary property which no other coparcener has. In the exercise of the said power, he may sell or mortgage the joint family property, whether moveable or immoveable, including the interest of his sons for the payment of his own debt, provided it was an antecedent debt and was not incurred for immoral or illegal purposes. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the debt due to the Bank of Baroda is tainted by any illegality or immorality. On the other hand, it is his specific case that the said debt was contracted by him and his father jointly for family necessity. It, therefore, follows that even assuming that the entire suit property is joint family property, the sale of the same by the father to defendants 1 and 2 for the discharge of the said debt is perfectly valid and binding on the plaintiff. ... ... ..."
In the case on hand, absolutely no evidence was placed by the appellant to show that the alleged debt was borrowed for legal necessity.
23. The learned counsel for appellant placed another reliance on Sri Narayan Bal v. Sri Sridhar Sutar 4 wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
"5. ... ... ... Ordinarily the law does not envisage a natural guardian of the undivided interest of a Hindu minor in joint family property. The natural guardian of the property of a Hindu minor, other than the undivided interest in 3 1999(1) ALD 333 4 1996(1) Supreme 638 11 VGKR, J.
sa_92_2012 joint family property, is alone contemplated under Section 8, whereunder his powers and duties are defined. Section 12 carves out an exception to the rule that should there be no adult member of the joint family in management of the joint family property, in which the minor has an undivided interest, a guardian may be appointed; but ordinarily no guardian shall be appointed for such undivided interest of the minor. The adult member of the family in the management of the Joint Hindu Family property may be a male or a female, not necessarily the Karta. The power of the High Court otherwise to appoint a guardian, in situations justifying, has been preserved. This is the legislative scheme on the subject. Under Section 8 a natural guardian of the property of the Hindu minor, before he disposes of any immovable property of the minor, must seek permission of the court. But since there need be no natural guardian for the minor's undivided interest in the joint family property, as provided under Sections 6 and 12 of the Act, the previous permission of the Court under Section 8 for disposing of the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is not required. The Joint Hindu Family by itself is a legal entity capable of acting through its Karta and other adult members of the family in management of the Joint Hindu Family property. ... ... ..."
In the case on hand, the purchaser of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property i.e., the defendant is none other than the co son-in-law of the minor plaintiffs' grandfather. As per the own admissions of the defendant, both the minor plaintiffs are in the custody of their maternal grandfather, by name Janardhana Rao, from the date of death of Swarna Kumari and the said Janardhana Rao is his co son-in-law. Having knowledge of the same, the appellant obtained the sale deed by showing the minor plaintiffs' father as guardian to the minor plaintiffs and obtained the alleged sale deed. As stated supra, the minor plaintiffs' mother died under suspicious circumstances and a post-mortem was also held in the Government General Hospital, Guntur and the appellant also attended the hospital and from the date of the death of Swarna Kumari onwards, both the minor plaintiffs are in the custody of the maternal grandfather but not in the custody of the father. Therefore, the alleged sale deed was fraudulently obtained from the minor plaintiffs' father by showing the minor plaintiffs' father as guardian to the minor plaintiffs in 12 VGKR, J.
sa_92_2012 respect of their 2/3rd undivided share though the minor plaintiffs are in the custody of maternal grandfather, who is co son-in-law of the appellant/defendant. Therefore, the said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs to the extent of their 2/3rd undivided share in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property.
24. The learned counsel for appellant relied on Sankhala (Mali) Kantaben WD/o Bharatbhai Laljibhai v. Rabari Panchabhai Chelabhai5, wherein the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad held as follows:
"5. The logic behind the exclusion of natural guardian being such guardian in respect of undivided interest of a minor in the joint family property appears to be two fold (01) the manager is entitled to deal with undivided shares in the interest of the family and; (2) the undivided share is not fixed; but is variable with the change in the constitution of the family and unless the share is divided or partitioned, the interest would not be acquired by the minor so that the natural guardian can deal with the same. It appears that with the said logic, no permission inter alia to convey the undivided interest of a minor in the joint family property from the manager of such property has been contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 8."
25. The learned counsel for appellant also placed relied on an unreported judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt Preeti Arora v. Subhash Chandra Arora6 wherein it is held as follows:
"... ... ... Under Section 8 a natural guardian of the property of the Hindu minor, before he disposes of any immovable property of the minor, must seek permission of the court. But since there need be no natural guardian for the minor's undivided interest in the joint family property, as provided under Sections 6 and 12 of the Act, the previous permission of the Court under Section 8 of disposing of the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is not required."
In the case on hand, by giving cogent reasons, the first appellate Court held in its judgment that Ex.A-8 sale transaction was taken place at 5 AIR 2020 Gujarat 205 6 First Appeal from Order No.272/2024, dt.05-3-2024 13 VGKR, J.
sa_92_2012 Mylavaram village, whereas the endorsement on Ex.B-2 pronote was taken place on the same day at Hyderabad and it is highly impossible for anybody to reach Mylavaram from Hyderabad within a short span of two hours. The first appellate Court further held in its judgment that Ex.A-8 was registered on 25-6-2001 in the office of Sub Registrar, Mylavaram, in between 01.00 p.m. and 02.00 p.m., whereas as per the admissions of the appellant, the payment endorsement on the reverse of Ex.B-2 pronote was made at 04.30 p.m. on the same day at Hyderabad. By giving the said reasons, the learned first appellate Judge held that Ex.B-2 pronote is a created one.
Admittedly, in the case on hand, the minor plaintiffs' father is not a custodian of the minor plaintiffs, by the date of the alleged sale deed, he is not at all managing the plaint schedule property and he is not looking after the welfare of the minor plaintiffs.
26. As noticed supra, in the sale deed itself it was recited that on 30-6-1998 the minor plaintiffs' mother borrowed an amount of Rs.38,000/- from one G. Surendra Reddy and executed a pronote and the appellant discharged the said pronote debt and only Rs.3,000/- was paid to the minor plaintiffs' father after deducting the debt borrowed by the plaintiffs' mother. Admittedly, Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not contemplate that a sale deed has to contain the purpose of alienation of the schedule property. The minor plaintiffs' father is not the custodian of the minor plaintiffs by the date of the alleged sale deed, which was obtained by the defendant. The appellant, who is a close relative of the family of the plaintiffs' maternal grandfather and he is none other than co son-in-law of the plaintiffs' maternal grandfather, obtained the sale deed from the plaintiffs' father by showing the plaintiffs' father as a guardian to the minor plaintiffs to the extent of undivided 2/3rd share of minor plaintiffs. The minor plaintiffs' father cannot alienate the undivided share of the minor plaintiffs i.e. 1/3rd each in total 2/3rd share and under the said sale deed, the plaintiffs' father can, at best, alienate his 1/3rd undivided share to the appellant.
14VGKR, J.
sa_92_2012
27. The learned counsel for plaintiffs would draw the attention of this Court that the minor plaintiffs obtained an agreement of sale from the minor plaintiffs' father in respect of 1/3rd undivided share of the minor plaintiffs' father and a consideration was paid by the minor plaintiffs' maternal grandfather to the minor plaintiffs' father. Admittedly, no sale deed has been obtained by the plaintiffs in respect of 1/3rd undivided share of their father in pursuance of the said agreement of sale. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not having any right in the 1/3rd undivided share of the minor plaintiffs' father in view of the alienation made by the minor plaintiffs' father under the registered sale deed in favour of the appellant in respect of his 1/3rd undivided share. Therefore, the sale deed dated 25-6-2001 obtained by the appellant in respect of 2/3rd undivided share of the plaintiffs is void and not binding on the plaintiffs. For the aforesaid reasons, Ex.B-7 sale deed dated 25-6-2001 said to have been obtained by the defendant is void in respect of 2/3rd undivided share of the plaintiffs and the said sale deed is not at all binding on the plaintiffs in respect of their 2/3rd undivided share.
28. In the result, the second appeal is partly allowed by modifying the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Judge as the suit in O.S.No.1077 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, is partly decreed without costs by declaring that the sale deed dated 25-6-2001 said to have been obtained by the defendant from the plaintiffs' father is void in respect of 2/3rd undivided share of the plaintiffs and the said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs in respect of their 2/3rd undivided share in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal.
__________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
02nd May, 2025.
Ak 15 VGKR, J.
sa_92_2012 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Second Appeal No.92 of 2012 (P.D. Judgment) 02nd May, 2025.
(Ak)