GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 12-3-2002 passed in Os No. 59/1986. Facts in brief are as under; ( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS are the sons of the first defendant. They filed a suit for partition and for declaration before the trial court. A declaration was sought to the effect that action sale of the suit schedule property bearing CTS No. 2441 in execution case No. 113/1997 is not binding on them. Second defendant on an earlier occasion filed a suit for recovery of money from the first defendant (father of the plaintiffs) on the basis of a pro-note executed by the first defendant. The suit ended in a compromise. Decree was drawn. Decree was executed in execution No. 143/1983. The suit property was brought to sale and the third defendant purchased the property in court auction. Plaintiffs were not parties to the earlier suit. According to the present plaintiffs, their father contracted debts for illegal and immoral purposes and it is not for the benefit of the family or for legal necessity. Further plaint averments are that the Miscellaneous case No. 101/1984 filed by the plaintiffs came to be dismissed for default. Misc. Case 24/86 was also rejected. Again CRP No. 273/1986 was filed. The said revision was also dismissed with an observation that the plaintiffs can file a suit. The suit filed for partition and declaration came to be dismissed. RFA. No. 231/1991 preferred by the plaintiffs was allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh trial. Two applications were filed. One for amendment and one for production of additional documents. The said applications were rejected. CRPS filed in this court were also dismissed with certain observations. With these facts this appeal is presented before me. ( 3 ) SRI DLN Rao, learned counsel for the appellants essentially contends that the earlier suit is not binding on them and the debts incurred by the father was not for legal necessities. He also contends that the facts of this case would show that a valuable property is being sold in court auction for no fault of the children. Counsel relies on judgments in his favour. The matter was reserved for judgment. The learned counsel again wanted to argue and he was permitted to make further submission. He also contends that the facts of this case would show that a valuable property is being sold in court auction for no fault of the children. Counsel relies on judgments in his favour. The matter was reserved for judgment. The learned counsel again wanted to argue and he was permitted to make further submission. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I have carefully perused the impugned judgment. The sum and substance of the argument of the appellants is that the earlier suit proceedings are not binding on them, as the transaction between their father and the second defendant is not for legal necessity. The third defendant- auction purchaser failed to make necessary enquiries before participation in the auction. ( 5 ) LEARNED trial Judge in the light of the pleadings has chosen to frame as many as 11 issues. The learned Judge notices Ex-Pl, the CTS extract of the property bearing CTS NO. 2441. It is seen from the material on record that the first defendant became the owner of the property by virtue of his adoption by one Basavannewwa in the year 1931. In the light of this material, the learned holds that by way of amendment another property bearing CTS No. 2075 was added to this property but no extract of the property was filed. After noticing this aspect he has answered the issues No. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and issue No. 3 in the negative. ( 6 ) ISSUE No. 4 is a crucial issue on which elaborate arguments were advanced by the plaintiffs. It deals with legal necessities in the matter of loan obtained by the father of the plaintiffs from the second defendant. It was this loan transaction that was ended in a compromise. The learned Judge notices the evidence on record. PW-l and 2 were examined. They have stated in their evidence that their father was addicted to bad habits and was raising loans for immoral and illegal purposes. I have seen the evidence on record. This finding is not corroborated by another other relative or friend of their father. There are also no details forthcoming with regard to the alleged immoral or illegal purpose. It is also to be noticed at this stage that the father and the present plaintiffs have sold another property in terms of Ex-D3. Ex. This finding is not corroborated by another other relative or friend of their father. There are also no details forthcoming with regard to the alleged immoral or illegal purpose. It is also to be noticed at this stage that the father and the present plaintiffs have sold another property in terms of Ex-D3. Ex. D-3 is nothing but item No. 3 of the suit schedule property. It has been sold after filing of the suit. If really the father has had bad vices, as contended before the trial court and before this court, it is un- understandable to me as to how the sons could join with an immoral father and sell the property that too after making allegations against the father. The learned Judge noticing the inadequate evidence and the conduct of the plaintiffs held against the appellants/plaintiffs. Even in this court to my repeated questions, the counsel was unable to convince me with regard to the conduct of the parties. As I mentioned earlier no details are forthcoming with regard to bad habits. The evidence on record also do not support the bad habits with details. In these circumstances, the learned Judge is right in rejecting the theory of bad habits and the argument of the earlier suit not binding on the plaintiffs on the ground of bad habits. It is also necessary for me at this stage to notice the grievance of the bad habits as spoken to by PW-l. He states that for the past 10 years his father is addicted to bad vices. He does not know whether his father was addicted to bad vices before that period. His evidence was recorded in the year 1986. PW-2 has spoken about the so-called bad vices. He has stated that his father was gambling and drinking liquor and that he was playing cards in the house. He was aged 26 years in the year- 1986. A man of 26 year old speaks about the bad habits of his father in the year 1970. Therefore in my view much reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of this witness as rightly held by the learned Judge. ( 7 ) I must also notice another contention of the learned counsel with regard to the finding of this Court in CRP NO. 3846-47/2001 on the IAs XIII and XIV filed by the plaintiffs before the trial court. ( 7 ) I must also notice another contention of the learned counsel with regard to the finding of this Court in CRP NO. 3846-47/2001 on the IAs XIII and XIV filed by the plaintiffs before the trial court. This court notices that these two IAs were filed at the concluding stage of the suit proceedings. This Court noticing the conduct has dismissed the revision reserving liberty to the plaintiffs to raise additional grounds. In the light of the evidence already available on record, no prejudice as such is shown to me on account of denial of amendment or the additional grounds. ( 8 ) IT is fairly well settled in law that burden of proving non-existence of debt would be upon the sons. It also cannot be forgotten that the sons could have issued a public notice at the time of sale that there was in reality no debt or that the debt for which the decree was passed was contracted by the father for immoral purpose. Sons have to show by acceptable evidence with regard to the illegal activities of the father. Since on facts, the appellants have failed to prove the same the impugned judgment cannot be set aside in the given set of facts at their instance. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant relies on several judgments. Let me see as to whether those judgments come to his aid in the given set of facts. AIR 1991 SC 1581 (Kalawaibai Vs. Soiryabai) is pressed into service with regard to legal necessities. That was a case in which an injunction was sought for on the basis of a gift deed. It was also a case of Hindu Widow. The facts of that case are not applicable to the present set of facts. It is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case the court was considering with regard to alienee acquiring any right by adverse possession. The second judgment relied on by the learned counsel is AIR 1990 AP 164 . According to the counsel this judgment is squarely applicable to his case. In the said case, the plaintiff and the defendants were brothers. They were the sons of one Nagendram who died in the year 1955. Nagendrams brother Pullayya and the first defendant borrowed some amount from one Hanumantha Rao. Hanumantha Rao filed a suit and obtained a decree against pullayya and the first defendant. In the said case, the plaintiff and the defendants were brothers. They were the sons of one Nagendram who died in the year 1955. Nagendrams brother Pullayya and the first defendant borrowed some amount from one Hanumantha Rao. Hanumantha Rao filed a suit and obtained a decree against pullayya and the first defendant. Thereafter the property was purchased in an auction. It was in those circumstances, an application under Order 21 Rule 19 CPC was filed. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The main contention of the plaintiff was that the decree in Os No. 142/1968 is not binding on him, that there was a division in the family and that he had been living as a divided member for several years. It was not the same as in the present case. That was a case in which the claim was made on the ground of a division between the members of the family and it was in those circumstances, the court ruled that the suit is not binding in the light of individual living by the parties. The Court also notices in the said case that there was no evidence available on record. The facts in the present case are totally different. Therefore I am not inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel based on this judgment. The third judgment relied on by the learned counsel is (AIR 1990 Orissa 226 ). That again is clearly distinguishable on facts. It was a case where a Manager of a Joint family property borrowed certain loans. The court was considering as to whether the lender has acted honestly in enquiring into the necessity. In the case on hand, the first defendant has purchased the property in a court action. It is well settled principle of law that before court auction is held, legal formalities are completed. Therefore it cannot be said that the third defendant did not take the necessary steps with regard to the details of the property. Court auction has to be given some value and it cannot be treated as a nullity in subsequent proceedings. Therefore the contention that the third defendant did not take necessary steps cannot be accepted. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel, the defendants should have made a reasonable enquiry as to the necessity of the loan. Court auction has to be given some value and it cannot be treated as a nullity in subsequent proceedings. Therefore the contention that the third defendant did not take necessary steps cannot be accepted. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel, the defendants should have made a reasonable enquiry as to the necessity of the loan. As I mentioned earlier, in the given set of facts the reasonable enquiry argument is fully answered by the provisions of the CPC in court auction sale. Therefore I am not inclined to set aside the Court auction sale that too at the instance of the sons with the assistance of the father. If the court auctions are lightly treated and set aside as suggested by the learned counsel, then there is no sanctity to the court auction sale. Moreover nothing prevented the sons from taking any other steps instead of waiting for the execution case and that too a court auction sale. It cannot also be forgotten that these very plaintiffs filed Misc. Case No. 101/84 for canceling the Court auction sale and not to confirm the sale in favour of the third defendant. That case was transferred to the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) which was dismissed in terms of Ex. D1. It is to be seen that they have filed the is to be seen that they have filed the present suit in the year 1986. ( 11 ) IN the given set of facts I am not inclined to disturb the court auction sale at the instance of the plaintiffs in the case on hand. Before concluding let me add a word of caution to the trial courts. It is not unknown in a country like ours where the father incurs certain debts and those debts result in either compromise or decree of a competent court. These decrees are subsequently executed in execution proceedings. Properties are brought for sale in execution proceedings. After several years these court auction sale proceedings being questioned by the sons on the plea of legal necessity. The trial court has to be very careful in evaluating and accepting the no legal necessity theory as advanced by the sons after several long years in subsequent proceedings. The suit of the year 1977 is dragged on for one reason or the other. The suit filed by the second defendant against the first defendant ended in a compromise. The trial court has to be very careful in evaluating and accepting the no legal necessity theory as advanced by the sons after several long years in subsequent proceedings. The suit of the year 1977 is dragged on for one reason or the other. The suit filed by the second defendant against the first defendant ended in a compromise. Execution Proceedings were initiated. Money was deposited in 1983. But he is unable to realize the benefits of the decree. The present case is an eye opener for the trial courts to be careful in evaluating the evidence in such circumstances in the larger interest of justice. The present second suit is nothing but an attempt to tire the defendants on the part of the sons, after a compromise by the father with the second defendant. I am sure that these words of caution would be borne in mind by the trial court in such case. In the result, the appeal stands rejected. The judgment and decree are confirmed. --- *** --- .