BHIMAVARAPU SUBBA REDDY Vs. B NAGIREDDY
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
BHIMAVARAPU SUBBA REDDY
Click here to view full judgement.
Alladi Kuppuswami, J. -
(1.) Defendants 2 and 3 in O. S. No. 41 of 1964 on the file of the Sub Court, Gudivada are the appellants. The suit was brought by respondents 1 and 2 herein who were minors, represented by their mother and guardian, for partition and separate possession of the plaint A Schedule property into three equal shares and for allotment of two such shares to the plaintiffs after setting aside the alienation of the A Schedule property by their father to the extent of the plaintiffs share and for other reliefs. The plaintiffs father, Bhimavarapu Nagireddy, was the first defendant in the suit, and the alienees Defendants 2 and 3.
(2.) Nagireddi and his two minor sons constituted a joint Hindu family. The family owned ancestral property of an extent of Ac. 2-64 cents of wet land and 0-04 cents of house site in the village of Pamarru, Krishna District. Nagireddi was also carrying on business on fertilisers and was plying motor vehicles. He purchased the plaint A Schedule property under three sale-deeds, Exs. B-3, B-4 and B-5 dated 4-7-58 for Rs. 2,000.00-, Rs. 4,000.00- and Rs. 2,000.00- respectively. He sold these properties under two sale-deeds, Exs. B-1 and B-2 dated 9-8-1962. The first sale-deed was in respect of Ac. 2-95 cents for a sum of Rs. 9,000.00- in favour of the second defendant in the suit and the second sale-deed was in respect of Ac. 1-00 for a sum of Rs. 3,000.00- in favour of the third defendant in the suit. In both the sale-deeds it was stated that the lands sought to be sold were far away and inconvenient for cultivation and they were being sold for the purpose of purchasing other property which would be within easy reach and as it was profitable to sell the properties. The executants were Nagireddy and his two minor sons, represented by their father and guardian, Nagireddy, and the property was described as their property. Under the sale-deeds one third of the sale price was paid and for the balance, namely Rs. 6,000.00- in regard to Exs. B-1 and Rs. 2,000.00- in regard to Ex. B-2, promissory notes were executed by the purchasers and it was stipulated that the amounts due under the promissory notes would be paid when the other property proposed to be purchased was actually purchased. The purchasers were given possession of the property on the date of the execution of the sale-deeds.
(3.) The two minor sons of Nagireddy, represented by their mother filed the suit questioning the alienation made by the father under Exs. B-1 and B-2. In the plaint it was stated that their father was indulging in gambling in clubs and the A Schedule property was purchased by contracting debts which were subsequently discharged by selling away ancestral property that the plaint A Schedule property was joint family property of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further submitted that the sales under Exs. B-1 and B-2 were not supported by the legal necessity, nor were they made for the benefit of the joint family. The lands were sold for a grossly inadequate price. The recitals in the sale-deeds that the property was not convenient for cultivation was false and no other property was intended to be purchased or purchased as recited in the sale-deeds. The property was merely sold with a view to invest the amounts in speculation and gambling.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.