JUDGMENT :- Episode in nut-shell: Majeti Nageswara Rao, the unsuccessful 8th defendant in O.S.No.380 of 1980 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, is the present appellant. Respondent No.1 Bommu Haribabu is the plaintiff in the said suit. 2. The suit was instituted praying for the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share of the plaintiff as an indigent person. The said suit was resisted by filing written statements in detail and the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, D.Ws.1 to 10, marked Exs.A-1 to A-18, Exs.B-1 to B-35 and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record recorded findings and ultimately came to the conclusion that the suit to be partly decreed so far as items 2 to 5 of plaint ‘A’ schedule against the first defendant and 8th defendant and accordingly a preliminary decree for partition of items 2 to 5 of plaint ‘A’ schedule into three equal shares and for allotment and delivery of possession of one such share to the plaintiff was granted. Further, it was held that the plaintiff is entitled for proportionate costs against 8th defendant in respect of item No.2 and the plaintiff also is entitled for proportionate costs against the first defendant in respect of items 3 to 5. The rest of the suit claim in respect of item No.1 of plaint ‘A’ schedule against defendants 4 to 7 had been dismissed, but however, in the circumstances without costs. Certain further directions were given relating to the payment of court fee and for ascertainment of mesne profits. It is stated that 8th defendant is concerned with item No.2 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule only. Being aggrieved of that portion of the preliminary decree, defendant No.8 had preferred the present appeal. 3. Contentions of Sri T.S. Anand:- Sri T.S. Anand, learned counsel representing appellant-8th defendant had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the issues settled and the findings recorded by the trial court and would maintain that the trial court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record in proper perspective. 3. Contentions of Sri T.S. Anand:- Sri T.S. Anand, learned counsel representing appellant-8th defendant had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the issues settled and the findings recorded by the trial court and would maintain that the trial court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record in proper perspective. The counsel also would maintain that the properties bequeathed by Bommu Pitchi Reddy under the Will, Ex.A-1, would be self acquired properties of the legatee, the first defendant, and not joint family properties and, hence, the sons of the first defendant cannot put forth any claim for partition in relation to such properties. The learned counsel also would maintain that in the light of the averments made by the first defendant in the insolvency proceedings and also in the light of several documents relied upon, plaintiff, who approached the court by claiming the relief of partition, should have placed acceptable evidence before the court to prove that such properties were bequeathed by late Pitchi Reddy under Ex.A-1, are his ancestral properties, in the absence of such evidence, despite the fact that the first defendant was taken in adoption by the said Pitchi Reddy, in view of the fact that a Will was executed in his favour, the properties partake the character of the self acquisitions of the first defendant and in this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the trial court cannot be sustained. The counsel also would further maintain that no evidence had been placed before the court to show that at least the first defendant treated these properties, which he got under the Will, as either ancestral properties or joint family properties. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the oral and documentary evidence available on record and pointed out to the evidence of P.W.1 in particular apart from the evidence of D.W.9, the 8th defendant. The counsel also pointed out that it may be true that the first defendant might have executed certain documents in his individual capacity not showing his then minor children as parties to the sale transactions and may be in certain documents the minor children also might have been shown. The counsel also pointed out that it may be true that the first defendant might have executed certain documents in his individual capacity not showing his then minor children as parties to the sale transactions and may be in certain documents the minor children also might have been shown. But, this would not seriously alter the situation, especially in the light of the specific stand taken by the first defendant in the insolvency proceedings and also the conduct of the first defendant in not raising such objections in relation to other proceedings as well. The learned counsel also pointed out to certain other proceedings and would maintain that even the plaintiff had not raised such objections, but however, after the 8th defendant became successful bidder in relation to item No.2 in the sale conducted by Official Receiver, this litigation had been thought of only with a view to put the appellant into serious loss. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel also pointed out to certain of the findings recorded in relation to item No.1 and would maintain that different standards had been adopted by the trial court while appreciating the evidence available on record. The counsel also pointed out to certain sale transactions marked as exhibits/A-series and also certain sale transactions marked as exhibits/B-series. The counsel also would point out that the legal rights of the parties may have to be decided in the light of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The learned counsel also specifically pointed out that it is not in serious controversy that this property, item No.2, is a portion of the property which had been purchased by the first defendant out of the sale proceeds of the sale of certain properties covered by Ex.A-1. When the original properties are to be treated as self acquired properties of the first defendant, the subsequent acquisitions made out of such sale proceeds also would partake the character of the self acquisitions of the first defendant only, especially in the absence of any acceptable evidence placed by the plaintiff to establish that the origin of the properties that is of Pitchi Reddy to be taken as ancestral properties or joint family properties. In the absence of any other acceptable evidence, the 8th defendant being a bona fide purchaser in relation to item No.2 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule for valuable consideration of Rs.50,950/- such sale to be upheld and to be confirmed. While further elaborating his submissions the learned counsel also pointed out to the doctrine of pious obligation and would maintain that it is not the case of the plaintiff that these debts were contracted for the purpose of Avyavaharika and such debts when cannot be treated as Avyavaharika debts, the kartha of the family or the manager of the family being under an obligation under law cannot escape from such liability and inasmuch as this item No.2 of plaint ‘A’ schedule was brought to sale in accordance with law and when the Official Receiver conducted auction, the 8th defendant, present appellant, who is also one of the creditors in the insolvency proceedings, having participated and bona fidely purchased the said item, such auction sale in favour of the appellant-8th defendant to be upheld and to be confirmed, since the same cannot be avoided even by the sons of the first defendant. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions. 4. Contentions of Sri P. Gopal Das:- Sri P. Gopal Das, learned counsel representing the first respondent-plaintiff had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the trial court and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case the findings recorded by the trial court cannot be found fault in any way for the reason that the origin of these properties to be traced from the time of Pitchi Reddy and the adoption of first defendant by Pitchi Reddy not being in serious controversy, it may have to be taken that dehors Ex.A-1. Whether Pitchi Reddy executed a Will or not, whether Pitchi Reddy died intestate or testate, this would not seriously alter the situation as far as the rights of the parties of the said family, the adopted father Pitchi Reddy and the adopted son, the first defendant. Whether Pitchi Reddy executed a Will or not, whether Pitchi Reddy died intestate or testate, this would not seriously alter the situation as far as the rights of the parties of the said family, the adopted father Pitchi Reddy and the adopted son, the first defendant. The learned counsel also would maintain that the nature or the character of these properties as ancestral would not be changed by virtue of the fact that Pitchi Reddy executed a Will Ex.A-1 in favour of the adopted son, in other words, the learned counsel would emphasize whether the Will was executed by Pitchi Reddy in favour of first defendant or not, the rights of these parties in the family properties would be the same and they are to be decided as though such testamentary disposition had not been made by Pitchi Reddy. While further elaborating his submissions the learned counsel in all fairness would maintain that on the aspect of crucial question relating to the nature of the properties of Pitchi Reddy at the relevant point of time, no acceptable evidence had been adduced by the parties. However, the counsel also pointed out to certain of the sale deeds marked as A-series, Exs.A-4, A-5, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11 and also B-series, Exs.B-3, B-4, B-5, B-7, B-8 and pointed out that in the light of these sale transactions, no doubt, certain sales were made by the first defendant-father in certain sale transactions the then minors also had been shown and this would go to show that the first defendant- father also treated these properties as family properties and, hence, this is a strong circumstance to be taken into consideration relating to the nature of the properties. The counsel also incidentally pointed out to Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2 also and made certain submissions explaining how these documents came into existence and relevant findings recorded in this regard. While concluding, the learned counsel would point out that in the light of the findings which had been recorded in detail by the trial court, such findings need not be disturbed in the present appeal. The counsel also placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions. 5. Heard the counsel on record, perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the leaned Subordinate Judge, Guntur, in O.S.No.380 of 1980. 6. The counsel also placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions. 5. Heard the counsel on record, perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the leaned Subordinate Judge, Guntur, in O.S.No.380 of 1980. 6. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as shown in O.S.No.380 of 1980 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur. 7. As already referred to supra, the plaintiff instituted the suit as an indigent person praying for partition of the plaint schedule properties into three equal shares and allotment of one such share to him and for other appropriate reliefs. Respective pleadings of the parties are as hereunder: 8. Averments made in the plaint: It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff and defendant No.2 were the two sons of defendant No.1 and they had eight sisters. Defendant No.1 was adopted by Bommu Pitchi Reddy of Atmakuru in 1928 and he became entitled to Ac.5-74 cents of wet land in Atmakuru; Ac.1-00 cents in China Kakani and Ac.1-12 cents of dry land in Atmakuru besides vacant site and house in about Ac.0-18 cents. Later with the said nucleus he purchased several properties to the extent of about Ac.13-00 cents and sold them away by indulging in several types of business and other activities. It is further averred that in 1976 one Meka Mallareddy of Penumaka, Mangalagiri taluk, filed a suit O.S.No.13 of 1976 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur, against the first defendant and got item No.2 of the ‘A’ schedule of the plaint attached in E.P.No.279 of 1976 after obtaining a decree. Thus, the joint family of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 got disrupted according to law on 29.12.1976. Since then the first defendant ceased to represent the sons as father-manager of the joint family. While so, the first defendant filed I.P.No.8 of 1977 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur, on 12.9.1977 and was adjudicated as insolvent on 29.6.1978. Pending the E.P., the third defendant was appointed interim receiver. By then the said decree holder Meka Mallareddy got item No.2 of the ‘A’ schedule sold in execution of his decree on 14.6.1978 and the same was purchased by one Guttikonda Ratnala Reddy alias Rama Krishna Reddy. The said petition was allowed on 29.12.1979 setting aside the sale. Pending the E.P., the third defendant was appointed interim receiver. By then the said decree holder Meka Mallareddy got item No.2 of the ‘A’ schedule sold in execution of his decree on 14.6.1978 and the same was purchased by one Guttikonda Ratnala Reddy alias Rama Krishna Reddy. The said petition was allowed on 29.12.1979 setting aside the sale. Later defendant No.3 administered the properties shown in the I.P. schedule items 1 and 2 of ‘A’ schedule and sold the building item No.1 on 12.7.1979 for Rs.18,600/-, Rs.16,500/- and Rs.16,200/- in favour of the defendants 4 to 6 respectively. On 18.10.1979 defendant No.3 sold the 4th building in item No.1 in favour of defendant No.7 for Rs.40,000/- and finally item No.2 on 25.2.1980 for Rs.50,960/- in favour of defendant No.8. Defendant No.1 purchased several properties with the property which he got from late Bommu Pitchi Reddy and sold most of them leaving behind the property as per ‘A’ schedule. He treated all the properties as joint family properties. Hence, the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to the said properties as members of a joint Hindu family and the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share. Defendant No.3 did not acquire the power of first defendant as the father to sell the shares of the plaintiff and the second defendant in the schedule properties. All the sales of the third defendant of item Nos.1 and 2 of ‘A’ schedule effected on 12.7.1979, 18.10.1979 and 25.2.1980 could convey only 1/3rd share of the insolvent, first defendant, which alone got vested in him under law. Defendants 4 to 7 had taken possession of the properties and the plaintiff, being a student, did not know about them. When he came to know that the family residential house, item No.2 was also sold by the third defendant on 25.2.1980 and a sale deed was being executed in the name of defendant No.8 and that he was going to dispossess the plaintiff in execution of the said sale by the third defendant which he had no right to do. In all the other items of ‘A’ schedule also the sales do not affect 1/3rd share of the plaintiff at all. No other property other than the movable property was shown in the ‘B’ schedule besides 1/3rd share in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property, the subject matter of the suit. 9. In all the other items of ‘A’ schedule also the sales do not affect 1/3rd share of the plaintiff at all. No other property other than the movable property was shown in the ‘B’ schedule besides 1/3rd share in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property, the subject matter of the suit. 9. Defendants 1 and 4 had not chosen to contest the suit. 10. Averments made in the written statement of D-2: Defendant No.1 got considerable property from his adoptive father which was the ancestral property. He acquired several properties within the aid and detriment to the family property. The family continued to be joint and the family house was sold. Hence, he prays that his 1/3rd share in the schedule properties be divided and allotted to him without any liability for any debts or actions of the first defendant or the Official Receiver in whom only the first defendant’s share vested under law. 11. Averments made in the written statement of 3rd defendant: The suit is not maintainable in law. The plaintiff was not entitled either to question the sales effected by him or seek for partition of 1/3rd share in the same. The suit schedule properties were admittedly the properties purchased by the first defendant and they were his self-acquisitions. Defendant No.3 was not aware of the adoption by Bommu Pitchi Reddy in 1928. He learnt that late Bommu Pitchi Reddy executed a Will on 16.8.1928 bequeathing his properties in favour of the first defendant. Even if he had sold any of his properties and purchased any of the items covered by the suit, the newly purchased properties cannot become the joint family properties or ancestral properties in the hands of the first defendant. The defendant was not aware that the first defendant became entitled to Ac.5-75 cents of wet land in Atmakuru; Ac.1-00 cents in China Kakani and Ac.1-12 cents of dry land at Atmakur besides a vacant site and a house in about 18 cents as alleged in para 3 of the plaint. The first defendant had several types of trades and with the income thereof he purchased the site at Mangalalgiri and constructed houses and in that connection he incurred debts. The first defendant filed I.P.No.8 of 1977 in which he claimed all the properties covered by the suit as his self acquired properties. The first defendant had several types of trades and with the income thereof he purchased the site at Mangalalgiri and constructed houses and in that connection he incurred debts. The first defendant filed I.P.No.8 of 1977 in which he claimed all the properties covered by the suit as his self acquired properties. He also claimed that he was a contractor of P.W.D and Zilla Parishad and that he had incurred losses to the extent of several lakhs of rupees. He also stated that he had ten children, two sons and daughters, and out of them he got married eight daughters and one son and that on account of the same he incurred debts. Defendant No.3 was appointed as interim receiver on 10.10.1977 and he was directed to take possession of all the properties covered by the insolvency application. It is also stated that one Meka Malla Reddy filed O.S.No.13 of 1976 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur against the first defendant and brought item No.2 of the present ‘A’ schedule properties to sale. He attached the entire property in E.P.No.279 of 1976 after obtaining the decree. Admittedly, the plaintiff was not a party to the suit or decree and no execution was levied against the plaintiff. On account of the said attachment, there was no disruption of the family. The decree holder Meka Malla Reddy was served with notice in the E.P, but he did not put in his appearance and took several adjournments to file his counter and ultimately the first defendant was declared insolvent on 29.6.1978. The decree-holder still continued the execution proceedings without making this defendant (Official Receiver) as party in spite of the objections put forth by the first defendant as the only judgment debtor. The Subordinate Judge, Guntur, conducted sale of the property of the first defendant and got it knocked down for very meagre amount in favour of his own son-in-law. The persons that took part in the auction were the son-in-law of the decree-holder brother’s son and grandson of the said decree-holder. There was no proper publication also. All the bidders belonged to Guntur, while the property was situated at Mangalagiri. As the property was vested with defendant No.3, he was constrained to file E.A.No.986 of 1978 and ultimately the said petition was allowed setting aside the sale. There was no proper publication also. All the bidders belonged to Guntur, while the property was situated at Mangalagiri. As the property was vested with defendant No.3, he was constrained to file E.A.No.986 of 1978 and ultimately the said petition was allowed setting aside the sale. Even during these proceedings, neither the plaintiff nor the second defendant intervened and claimed any rights. As this defendant was vested with entire suit schedule property and also the right to sell the shares of the sons even on the footing that it is joint property for the purposes of discharging the legitimate debts, this defendant was competent to bring the entire properties for sale. In the auctions that were held, 4th defendant purchased item No.1 of the ‘A’ schedule for Rs.18,600/- and a sale deed was executed and registered in his favour on 30.8.1979. Similarly defendant No.5 purchased item No.1 for Rs.16,500/- and a sale deed was executed and registered in his favour on 30.8.1979. Defendant No.6 purchased item No.1 for Rs.16,200/- and a sale deed was executed and registered in his favour on 30.8.1979 by this defendant. Item No.1 was purchased by defendant No.7 on 11.12.1979 for Rs.40,000/- and a sale deed was executed in his favour on 11.12.1979 and it was registered and all the said persons were put in possession of the property. Item No.2 of the ‘A’ schedule was put to sale after due publication by this defendant. Defendant No.8 was the highest bidder on 25.2.1980 for a sum of Rs.50,950/-. The entire amount was deposited with this defendant inclusive of stamp amount. There were no objections filed before the insolvency court or before this defendant questioning the said sale nor was any claim made by the plaintiff or the third defendant before the 3rd defendant and the first defendant gave a sworn statement on 18.10.1979 before this defendant stating that the entire property was delivered to him. He had also given a statement before this defendant on 28.6.1978 saying that the suit property belongs to him and that some properties at Atmakuru fell to the share of his sons in partition. On 18.1.1980 defendant No.1 got a memo filed before this defendant stating that this defendant can take possession of the property. Accordingly, this defendant took possession of the property. On 18.1.1980 defendant No.1 got a memo filed before this defendant stating that this defendant can take possession of the property. Accordingly, this defendant took possession of the property. When this defendant was about to execute a sale deed in favour of the 8th defendant, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and obtained an interim injunction restraining the execution of sale deed and delivery of possession to the 8th defendant. All the debts shown being only trade debts, in any event, the plaintiff and defendant No.3 were bound to discharge the debts. The allegations that the properties were purchased with the so called ancestral nucleus or this property was treated as joint family property were all not correct. It is not true that only 1/3rd share could be put to auction to any of the suit properties or that only 1/3rd share had been conveyed to defendants 4 to 7 under the sales. The very fact that the plaint does not show the movable properties of the family in the schedule clearly establishes that the first defendant was behind the suit and got the same manipulated through his son only to thwart of the right of this defendant in distribution of the assets to the proved creditors. 12. Averments made in the written statement of 7th defendant: Seventh defendant filed written statement which was adopted by defendants 5 and 6. It was pleaded by the 7th defendant that the plaint schedule properties, particularly the properties purchased by defendants 5 to 7, were self-acquired properties of the first defendant and these were not acquired with the ancestral nucleus, as the nucleus was not sufficient to acquire these properties at all. These items were acquired by the first defendant with his own self efforts. The sales in favour of defendants 5 to 7 were true, valid and binding on all, particularly the plaintiff. There was no illegality or irregularity in the sales effected by the third defendant in favour of defendants 5 to 7. The sales in their favour were supported by consideration and represent the true market value. The plaintiff himself was aware of the sales and he had accepted and advised for such sales even in writing also. There was no illegality or irregularity in the sales effected by the third defendant in favour of defendants 5 to 7. The sales in their favour were supported by consideration and represent the true market value. The plaintiff himself was aware of the sales and he had accepted and advised for such sales even in writing also. The plaintiff had no right whatsoever in the properties purchased by defendants 5 to 7 assuming without admitting that the plaintiff was entitled for any share and admitted as per the plaintiff’s case it was joint family property. The plaintiff’s share was also liable to be sold in court auction for discharge of debts by the father-manager. The sales by the third defendant of the sons’ share also were binding on them and cannot be questioned. The suit was filed by the plaintiff in collusion with his father, first defendant, to gain illegal benefit and to coerce the defendants to terms. The suit was liable to be dismissed on the allegations made in the plaint itself. 13. Averments made in the written statement of 8th defendant-appellant: The plaintiff was not entitled for partition of the plaint schedule properties or to 1/3rd share in the same. The plaintiff was also not entitled to mesne profits as claimed. Defendant No.8 was interested in item No.2 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule. The first defendant was the adopted son of B. Pitchireddy. He purchased Ac.0-50 cents of land in D.No.118/2 within Navuluru village limits under a registered sale deed dated 05.9.1946 for Rs.500/-. The money expended was self-acquisition. Later, he constructed number of houses in the same after developing the land at a very huge cost. He also borrowed moneys from several persons during constructions of those houses. Defendant No.8 was also one of the creditors of the first defendant. The first defendant was indebted to one Meka Mallareddy, who filed a suit O.S.No.13 of 1976 on the file of the Sub-Court, Guntur and obtained a decree for Rs.12,810-05 inclusive of costs against the first defendant. In E.P.No.279 of 1976 in O.S.No.13 of 1976 he levied execution for a sum of Rs.17,558-82. The first defendant was indebted to one Meka Mallareddy, who filed a suit O.S.No.13 of 1976 on the file of the Sub-Court, Guntur and obtained a decree for Rs.12,810-05 inclusive of costs against the first defendant. In E.P.No.279 of 1976 in O.S.No.13 of 1976 he levied execution for a sum of Rs.17,558-82. In the meanwhile the first defendant filed I.P.No.8 of 1977 on 12.9.1977 impleading defendant No.8 as 18th respondent as a creditor to that I.P. In the court auction, the sale was knocked down in favour of Guttikonda Ratnala Reddy alias Ramakrishna Reddy for Rs.25,500/- on 14.6.1978. The insolvency petition was contested by Meka Mallareddy, the decree-holder. The first defendant was declared insolvent on 25.10.1978. In the said insolvency proceedings, Meka Mallareddy showed that there were four other items of property owned by the first defendant. The first defendant contested that they were also allotted to the shares of his sons and that the items shown by him in the I.P. schedule was his self-acquired property. The Official Receiver filed E.A.No.986 of 1978 to set aside the sale on various grounds. The said petition was contested by all the concerned. Ultimately, the sale was set aside on 29.12.1979 and the E.P. was dismissed. Subsequently, the Official Receiver brought the property to sale after due publication. The first defendant brought his own relatives for competition and defendant No.8 purchased the said property on 25.2.1980 for Rs.50,950/- and deposited the entire amount before the Official Receiver inclusive of poundage. There were no petitions filed before the Insolvency Court by any person, whatsoever, questioning the said sale. The Official Receiver who already took possession of the property from the first defendant at the instance of the first defendant, himself was to execute a sale deed and deliver possession to defendant No.8. The debts mentioned by the first defendant, in any event, had to be discharged from out of the joint family properties also. For the discharge of these debts only the sale was held. Further, he was specifically given possession of the property and was vested with right to sell the joint family property for discharge of lawful debts. The plaintiff, in no event exercised his option to get the property divided before the sale by the Official Receiver. For the discharge of these debts only the sale was held. Further, he was specifically given possession of the property and was vested with right to sell the joint family property for discharge of lawful debts. The plaintiff, in no event exercised his option to get the property divided before the sale by the Official Receiver. As the Official Receiver exercised the right of a father to sell the property for discharging the debts long before this suit was filed, the plaintiff was not entitled to question the sale held by the Official Receiver. The first defendant made collusive alienations of several items of property to his own kith and kin. The first defendant sold 425 square yards of site with compound walls for a sum of Rs.2,975/- to his own daughter Vanajakshamma, who was unmarried by that time. The sale was not questioned by the plaintiff. On the other hand, he was shown the said Vanajakshamma as the owner of the property. He had also purported to sell the property to Danda Sesharatnamma on 12.5.1977, Danda Vemareddy on 12.5.1977, Chapala Venkateswara Rao on 15.11.1977. He had also sold the property on 26.4.1976 to Bommu Suramma for Rs.23,360/-. None of these sales were questioned by the plaintiff. It is false to state that the first defendant became entitled to Ac.5-74 cents of wet land in Atmakur; Ac.1-00 cents in China Kakani and Ac.1-12 cents of dry land in Atmakur besides vacant site and house in about Ac.0-13 cents of land. It is false to state that the first defendant purchased Ac.13-00 cents of land with the ancestral nucleus. The first defendant got the property under a Will dated 16.10.1928 from Bommu Pitci Reddy. Thus, the entire property which the first defendant got was his self-acquired property. Even if any purchase was made by sale of any of those items of properties, it becomes his self-acquired property and not the joint family property at all. It is not true that on account of E.P.No.279 of 1976 the joint family was disrupted on 29.12.1976. The attachment was in respect of the entire property and not a share of the first defendant, much less the specific share of the plaintiff. The attachment of the whole property, even if it was joint family property, does not create a division on status. The attachment was in respect of the entire property and not a share of the first defendant, much less the specific share of the plaintiff. The attachment of the whole property, even if it was joint family property, does not create a division on status. It is not true that the first defendant ceased to represent his sons on account of the attachment. Admittedly, the first defendant showed all these items in I.P.No.8 of 1977 as his own property. The Official Receiver had, in exercise of the rights vested in him, sold several items to defendants 3 and 7. He executed sale deeds in their favour. It is not true that the first defendant got the suit properties and cash. It is not true that ‘A’ schedule properties were purchased with the ancestral nucleus. The first defendant never treated the property as joint family property. The plaintiff and the second defendant had not got rights in the same. It is not true that the right of the first defendant as the father-manager became extinct from 29.12.1976. The plaintiff had no possession at all. In fact, the first defendant alone was in possession and he gave a statement to that effect before the Official Receiver and pressed the Official Receiver to take possession through his advocate. The Official Receiver had taken the possession. The very fact that the plaint does not show the existence of any movable property would clearly establish that this was a collusive suit engineered by the first defendant. The value of the property was very much exaggerated in the ‘A’ schedule for the purpose of attacking the sales effected by the Official Receiver. 14. Issues settled by the trial court: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of suit properties? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits? 3) If so, to what amount? 4) To what relief? 15. 14. Issues settled by the trial court: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of suit properties? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits? 3) If so, to what amount? 4) To what relief? 15. Oral and documentary evidence available on record: Witnesses examined For plaintiff: P.W.1: Bommu Hari Babu (plaintiff) P.W.2: Damerla Nagamani (Attestor of Ex.A-1) P.W.3: Janganam Subbarao (Attestor of Ex.A-4) P.W.4: Pasam Rajaiah P.W.5: Marrivada Ayodhyaramaiah (Purchaser under Ex.A-9) For defendants: D.W.1: Shaik Hameed D.W.2: Parimi Krishnamurthy D.W.3: Phamidapu Veeranjaneyulu D.W.4: Angaluri Sreenivasacharyulu (Scribe of Ex.B-6) D.W.5: Nalluri Gopaiah (Attestor of Exs.B7 & B8) D.W.6: Jonnakuti Venkatramaiah (Attestor of Ex.B-7 and B-8) D.W.7: Manchikalapuri Benni (Attestor of Ex.B7 and B8) D.W.8: V. Ammaiah (Official Receiver) D.W.9: M. Nageswararao (D8) D.W.10: Paruchuri Suresh Babu Documents marked For plaintiff: Ex.A-1/16.10.1928: Willnama executed by Bommu Pitchireddy. Ex.A-2/4.9.1946 : Registered sale deed executed by Bommu Narasimhareddy in favour of Byruboyina Nagaiah. Ex.A-3/5.9.1946 : Registration extract of sale deed executed by Ravuru Hanumaiah in favour of Bommu Narasimhareddy. Ex.A-4/15.2.1971 : Registration extract of sale deed executed by Bommu Narasimhareddy and his undivided minor sons in favour of Kasturi Ramachandra Rao. Ex.A-5/24.7.1969 : Registered sale deed executed by Bommu Narasimhareddy and his undivided sons in favour of Kasturi Ramachandrarao. Ex.A-6/1.1.1950 : Sale deed executed by Bulla Venkaiah in favour of Bommu Narasimhareddy. Ex.A-7/9.7.1964 : Relinqushment deed executed by Bommu Nagabhushanamma in favour of Bommu Narasimha reddy. Ex.A-8/9.4.1964 : Registration extract of sale deed executed by Bommu Narasimhareddy in favour of Kondru Ramanjaneyulu. Ex.A-9/12.7.1962 : Registration extract of sale deed executed by Bommu Narasimhareddy and his undivided minor sons in favour of Marrivada Ayodhyaramaiah and Veeraswamy. Ex.A-10/20.4.1956: Registration extract of sale deed executed by Bommu Narasimhareddy and his minor sons in favour of Yadla Ramakrishnaiah. Ex.A-11/12.7.1962: Registration extract of sale deed executed by (1) Bommu Nagabhushanamma (2) Bommu Narasimhareddyd and his undivided minor sons in favour of Neeli Bhadraiah. Ex.A-12/26.12.1976: C.C. of E.P.279/76 in O.S.No.13/76 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.A-13/29.12.1976: C.C. of Schedule in E.P.279/76 in O.S.No.13/76 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.A-14/29.12.1976: C.C. of Amins report in E.P.279/76 in O.S.13/76 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.A-15/11.7.1978: C.C. of verified petition in E.A.986/78 in E.P.279/76 in O.S.No.3/76 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.A-16/12.9.1977: Copy of petition filed in I.P.8/77 u/s.134 of provincial Insolvency Act together with schedule on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.A-14/29.12.1976: C.C. of Amins report in E.P.279/76 in O.S.13/76 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.A-15/11.7.1978: C.C. of verified petition in E.A.986/78 in E.P.279/76 in O.S.No.3/76 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.A-16/12.9.1977: Copy of petition filed in I.P.8/77 u/s.134 of provincial Insolvency Act together with schedule on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.A-17/13.5.1980: Temporary cist receipt for Rs.24.60 for fasli 1386 to 1389 in the name of Bommu Narasimhareddy for patta Nos.195, 7 and 246. Ex.A-18/6.5.1975: Temporary cist receipt for Rs.25.80 for faslis 1383 and 1384 in the name of Bommu Narasimhareddy for pattas 195, 7 and 246. For defendants: Ex.B-1/21.7.1984: C.C. of sale deed executed by Bommu Haribabu (P.W.1) and Bommu Satyanarayanareddy (D-2) in favour of Marikipudi Madan mohan being minor represented by father Madhavarao. Ex.B-2/20.7.1984: Certified copy of sale deed executed by Bommu Haribabu (P.W.1) and Bommu Satyanarayana Reddy (D-2) in favour of Bhimireddy Nagireddy. Ex.B-3/15.11.1977: Registration extract of sale deed executed by Vutturu Vanajakshi d/o Narasimhareddy in favour of Chapala Venkateswararao. Ex.B-4/26.4.1976: Certified copy of sale deed executed by Bommu Narasimhareddy in favour of Bommu Suramma. Ex.B-5/15.11.1977: Registration extract of sale deed executed by Bommu Narasimhareddy in favour of Chapala Venkateswararao. Ex.B-6/22.9.1980: Certified copy of Regd. Sale deed executed by Kasturi Ramachandrarao in favour of Bommu Eswaramma. Ex.B-7/12.5.1977: Registration extract of sale deed executed by Bommu Narasimhareddy in favour of Danda Vemareddy. Ex.B-8/12.5.1977: Registration extract of sale deed executed by Bommu Narasimhareddy in favour of Danda Sesharathamma. Ex.B-9/17.7.1975: Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Bommu Narasimhareddy in favour of Vuyyuru Vanajakshi. Ex.B-10/12.9.1977: Copy of petition in I.P.No.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur filed by Bommu Narasimhareddy. Ex.B-11/18.10.1979: C.C. of deposition of Bommu Narasimhareddy in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court handing over all movable and immovable properties. Ex.B-12/18.1.1980: Certified copy of memo filed by advocate for insolvent in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.B-13/25.2.1980: Bid list in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court,Guntur. Ex.B-14/12.7.1979: Bid list in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur (1st building D.No.1-702) Ex.B-15/12.7.1979: Bid list in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur for IInd building D.No.1-703 Ex.B-16/12.7.1979: Bid list in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur for III building D.No.1-704. Ex.B-17/18.10.1979: Bid list in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur(Building D.No.1-705. Ex.B-14/12.7.1979: Bid list in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur (1st building D.No.1-702) Ex.B-15/12.7.1979: Bid list in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur for IInd building D.No.1-703 Ex.B-16/12.7.1979: Bid list in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur for III building D.No.1-704. Ex.B-17/18.10.1979: Bid list in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur(Building D.No.1-705. Ex.B-18/29.4.1980: Certified copy of statement of tenants in the building obtained by the Official Receiver in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.B-19/14.12.1981: Sale deed executed by official receiver in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur in favour of Majeti Nageswara Rao (D-8) Ex.B-20/30.8.1979: Registration extract of sale deed executed by Official Receiver in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur in favour of Anumolu Purushotham (D5). Ex.B-21/30.8.1979: Registration extract of sale deed executed by Official Receiver in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur in favour of Dulam Nagaiah (D6) Ex.B-22/11.12.1979: Registration extract of sale deed executed by Official Receiver in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur in favour of Parchuru Suresh Babu (D7) Ex.B-23/30.8.1979: Registration extract of sale deed executed by Official Receiver in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur in favour of Vintha Venkatramireddy (D4) same as B-11. Ex.B-24: Same as B-11 Ex.B-25/11.7.1978: Certified copy of petition filed by official receiver in E.A.986/78 in E.P.279/76 in O.s.13/76 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.B-26/13.10.1986: Certified copy of order in I.A.889/80 in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.B-27/9.4.1980: Certified copy of petition with schedule in I.A.889/80 in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.B-28/30.8.1979: Registration extract of sale deed executed by official receiver (D3) in favour of Vintha Venkatramareddy (D4). Ex.B-29/ Certified copy of vakalat given by Bommu Narasimha Reddy (D1) to the advocate in I.P.8/77 in I.A.80/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.B-30/ Certified copy of encumbrance certificate showing all the alienations made by Bommu Narasimhareddy (d1) from 1940 to 11.12.79. Ex.B-31/9.4.1980: Served copy of petition and affidavit together with schedule in I.A.880/80 in I.P.8/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.B-32/ Copy of petition with schedule in E.A. /78 in E.P.No.279/76 in O.S.13/76 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.B-33/ Certified copy of petition in E.P.279/86 in O.S.13/76 on the file of Addl. Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.B-34/27.4.1982: C.C. of delivery receipt in I.P.8/77 in I.A.889/80 in M.P.No.346/81 on the file of Official Receiver, Guntur. Ex.B-32/ Copy of petition with schedule in E.A. /78 in E.P.No.279/76 in O.S.13/76 on the file of Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.B-33/ Certified copy of petition in E.P.279/86 in O.S.13/76 on the file of Addl. Sub-Court, Guntur. Ex.B-34/27.4.1982: C.C. of delivery receipt in I.P.8/77 in I.A.889/80 in M.P.No.346/81 on the file of Official Receiver, Guntur. Ex.B-35/11.12.1979: Sale deed executed by Official Receiver in favour of D7 (D.W.10). 16. Findings recorded by the trial court in nut-shell: The trial court, learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record while answering issue No.1 recorded reasons at paras 10 to 35 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in items 2 to 5 of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties, but he is not entitled for any relief of partition so far as item No.1 of plaint ‘A’ schedule and this issue is answered partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of the defendants. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, while answering issues 2 and 3 recorded certain reasons at para 36 and came to the conclusion that for the period prior to 27.4.1982, since the property item No.2 was with the Official Receiver, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief of mesne profits prior to 27.4.1982. However, the mesne profits shall be ascertained on a separate application for the rest of the period and in relation to the other items. Thus, at para 37 while answering issue No.4 the suit was partly decreed so far as items 2 to 5 of plaint ‘A’ schedule against defendant No.1 and 8th defendant and the preliminary decree for partition of items 2 to 5 of plaint ‘A’ schedule into three equal shares and for allotment and delivery of possession of one such share to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled for proportionate costs against 8th defendant in respect of item No.2 and the plaintiff is also entitled for proportionate costs against defendant No.1 in respect of items 3 to 5. The rest of the suit claim in respect of item No.1 of plaint ‘A’ schedule against defendants 4 to 7 had been dismissed. Certain other observations were made relating to the payment of court fee and also relating to the inquiry into mesne profits. 17. The rest of the suit claim in respect of item No.1 of plaint ‘A’ schedule against defendants 4 to 7 had been dismissed. Certain other observations were made relating to the payment of court fee and also relating to the inquiry into mesne profits. 17. Points for consideration:- In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties and also the submissions made by Sri T.S. Anand, learned counsel representing the appellant and Sri P. Gopal Das, learned counsel representing respondent No.1, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal: (1) Whether the findings recorded by the trial court in relation to item No.2 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule granting relief of partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in favour of respondent No.1 as plaintiff be sustained or to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) Whether the findings recorded by the trial court relating to the nature of the properties to be confirmed or to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case? (3) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled? 18. Points 1 & 2: For the purpose of convenience, both these points are dealt together. The plaintiff instituted the suit as an indigent person claiming the relief of partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share by praying for the relief of a preliminary decree to be made by dividing the property into three equal shares among the members of the family, the plaintiff, first defendant and second defendant as well. The respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the trial court in brief already had been narrated above and the same need not be repeated again in detail. 19. At the outset, it may be stated that the appellant, 8th defendant in the suit, is concerned with item No.2 of plaint ‘A’ schedule only. It is needless to say that the suit was partly decreed so far as items 2 to 5 of plaint ‘A’ schedule against defendant No.1 and D-8 and the first defendant had not chosen to contest the matter. Hence, in a way the preliminary decree made relating to items 3, 4 and 5 of plaint ‘A’ schedule having been left unchallenged, had attained finality. Hence, in a way the preliminary decree made relating to items 3, 4 and 5 of plaint ‘A’ schedule having been left unchallenged, had attained finality. This Court is not inclined to disturb the said preliminary decree relating to items 3, 4 and 5 of plaint ‘A’ schedule made by the trial court as against the first defendant. However, the appellant herein, the 8th defendant, is challenging the findings recorded by the trial court in relation to item No.2 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule. 20. It may not be out of context if it is pointed out that the claim in respect of item No.1 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule made by the plaintiff as against defendants 4 to 7 had been dismissed. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, the attestors of Ex.A-4 were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3, one Pasam Rajaiah was examined as P.W.4 and one Marrivada Ayodhyaramaiah, the purchaser under Ex.A-9, was examined as P.W.5, Exs.A-1 to A-18 had been relied upon. 21. On behalf of the defendants the attestor of Ex.B-3 Shaik Hameed examined as D.W.1, Parimi Krishnamurthy as D.W.2 and Phamidapu Veeranjaneyulu as D.W.3, the scribe of Ex.B-6 was examined as D.W.4, the attestor of Exs.B-7 and B-8 had been examined as D.W.5. Likewise, another attestor of the said documents was examined as D.W.6. Yet another attestor was examined as D.W.7. The Official Receiver V. Ammaiah was examined as D.W.8. D.W.9, the 8th defendant is the present appellant. D.W.10 is D-7. It is needless to say that since the suit was dismissed as against D-4 to D-7 the evidence of D.W.10 may not assume much importance. On behalf of the defendants Exs.B-1 to B-35 had been relied upon. 22. Though specifically the issue relating to adoption had not been formulated by the trial court, in the light of the admission of 8th defendant in the written statement admitting that the first defendant is adopted son of Pitchi Reddy, the same was answered at para 10 while answering issue No.1. Further, the original Will Ex.A-1, dated 16.10.1928 executed by Pitchi Reddy also appears to be not in controversy between the parties. Exs.A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-8 are the registration extracts of sale deeds executed by the first defendant Narasimha Reddy in favour of third parties. On the strength of these documents certain submissions were made relating to the nature of the properties. Exs.A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-8 are the registration extracts of sale deeds executed by the first defendant Narasimha Reddy in favour of third parties. On the strength of these documents certain submissions were made relating to the nature of the properties. Likewise, the counsel also pointed out to Exs.B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-8, B9 the sale deeds to substantiate their submissions relating to the nature of the properties. Incidentally certain submissions were made in relation to Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2 as well. It is pertinent to note that Ex.B-1 is dated 21.7.1984, certified copy of the sale deed executed by the plaintiff P.W.1 and Bommu Satyanarayana Reddy the second defendant in favour of Madan Mohan being a minor represented by father Madhava Rao. Likewise Ex.B-2 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 20.7.1984 executed by the plaintiff-P.W.1 and Bommu Satyanarayana Reddy D-2 in favour of Bhimireddy Nagireddy. 23. While making certain submissions in relation to Exs.B-1 and B-2 Sri T.S. Anand would maintain that there has been some arrangement between the family members and hence these alienations were made by P.W.1 and D-2 as well and the father had not joined the execution of these sale deeds and on the contrary Sri P. Gopal Das representing the first respondent-plaintiff would maintain that by virtue of these sale transactions it cannot be said that there was division of the properties between the family members by metes and bounds and, hence, the decree granted in relation to item No.2 also to be confirmed. Elaborate submissions were made by both the counsel relating to the nature of the properties whether these are to be taken as ancestral joint family properties of the family or to be taken as the self acquired properties of the first defendant since the first defendant got these property by virtue of Ex.A-1 by making purchase out of the sale proceeds of the sale of such properties shown in Ex.A-1. 24. As already referred to above, the factum of adoption i.e., the first defendant being the adopted son of the deceased Pitchi Reddy is not put into serious controversy by the parties. Equally, the Will executed by the said Pitchi Reddy in favour of the first defendant and certain others Ex.A-1 dated 16.10.1928 also is not put into serious controversy. 24. As already referred to above, the factum of adoption i.e., the first defendant being the adopted son of the deceased Pitchi Reddy is not put into serious controversy by the parties. Equally, the Will executed by the said Pitchi Reddy in favour of the first defendant and certain others Ex.A-1 dated 16.10.1928 also is not put into serious controversy. Relating to the origin of these properties whether these were the ancestral properties of Pitchi Reddy family at the relevant point of time or whether that family had any ancestral nucleus at all or whether these were the self acquisitions of said Pitchi Reddy for the reasons best known, no acceptable evidence had been placed before the court. 25. The plaintiff as P.W.1 no doubt deposed certain facts relating to the nature of the properties. P.W.1 deposed about the adoption of his father by Bommu Pitchi Reddy and his father got Ac.5-00 land and odd from his adoptive father and his father also got one acre and odd in China Kakani from his adoptive father. He also got a house an extent of Ac.0-18 cents and his father purchased an extent of Acs.10-00 subsequently. His father was an agriculturist. His father purchased Acs.10-00 of land from and out of the income of his ancestral lands. This witness also deposed that his father carried on business and incurred loss and his father spent the income from the business towards family expenses. His adoptive grandfather got natural son only. After his death his father was adopted by the said Pitchi Reddy. The natural son of Pitchi Reddy was married and after his marriage he died leaving the widow. Pitchi Reddy gave some property to her. She sold the property to others given by her father-in-law. This witness also deposed that Pitchi Reddy executed registered Will dated 16.10.1928 marked as Ex.A-1. His father sold one acre of land in China Kakani. Ex.A-2 is the sale deed dated 04.9.1946. His father purchased Ac.0-50 cents of site in Mangalagiri with the sale consideration of Ex.A-2 property. Ex.A-3 is the registration of the sale deed dated 5.9.1946 in favour of his father. Out of Ex.A-3 property Ac.0-20 cents is item No.2 in plaint ‘A’ schedule property. His father sold some property out of Ex.A-3 property. Ex.A-4 is the registration extract of the sale deed executed by his father in favour of Kastam Ramachandra Rao dated 15.2.1971. Ex.A-3 is the registration of the sale deed dated 5.9.1946 in favour of his father. Out of Ex.A-3 property Ac.0-20 cents is item No.2 in plaint ‘A’ schedule property. His father sold some property out of Ex.A-3 property. Ex.A-4 is the registration extract of the sale deed executed by his father in favour of Kastam Ramachandra Rao dated 15.2.1971. His father sold Ex.A-4 property representing him and the second plaintiff also as minors. His father treated his entire properties as joint family properties. His father also sold out of Ex.A-3 property to Kastam Ramachandra Rao under the sale deed dated 24.7.1969. Ex.A-5 is the sale deed dated 24.7.1969. Exs.A-6 and A-7 are two sale deeds dated 01.01.1950 and 09.7.1964 to show that his father was adopted by Pitchi Reddy. Ex.A-8 is the registration extract dated 09.4.1964 to show that his father was adopted by Pitchi Reddy. Ex.A-9 and A-10 are registration extracts of sale deeds dated 12.7.1962 and 13.4.1962 executed by his father for himself and representing him and second plaintiff. Ex.A-11 is the registration extract of the sale deed executed by his father and his sister-in-law Nagabhushanamma along with P.W.1 and second plaintiff dated 12.7.1962. P.W.1 also deposed that one Meka Malla Reddy filed a suit against his father in O.S.No.13 of 1976 and obtained a decree for recovery of money and he filed E.P.No.279 of 1976. Ex.A-12 is the certified copy of the E.P. Ex.A-13 is he certified copy of attachment schedule. Ex.A-14 is the certified copy of Amin’s report. This witness also deposed that his father filed I.P.No.8 of 1977. The Official Receiver filed E.A.No.986 of 1978 in E.P.No.279 of 1976. Ex.A-15 is the certified copy of the verified petition in E.A.No.986 of 1978. Ex.A-16 is the copy of the insolvency petition filed by his father. Exs.A-17 and A-18 are the land revenue receipts in the name of his father paid by him. The sale was set aside in regard to items 1 and 2 of plaint ‘A’ schedule in pursuance of Ex.A-15. The Official Receiver, Guntur sold item No.1 of plaint ‘A’ Schedule on 12.7.1979 in favour of D-4 to D-6. The Official Receiver, Guntur sold item No.2 in the auction and the same was purchased by D-8. The sale was set aside in regard to items 1 and 2 of plaint ‘A’ schedule in pursuance of Ex.A-15. The Official Receiver, Guntur sold item No.1 of plaint ‘A’ Schedule on 12.7.1979 in favour of D-4 to D-6. The Official Receiver, Guntur sold item No.2 in the auction and the same was purchased by D-8. This witness also deposed that in such circumstances he filed a suit for partition to divide the properties into three equal shares and allot one such share to him. This witness also deposed that his last sister is yet to be married. This witness also deposed that he has got eight sisters. The said unmarried sister at that point of time or the other sisters are not impleaded as parties to his partition action. 26. In cross-examination of P.W.1 this witness deposed that his eldest sister is Nagavardhanamma and she is residing at Mangalagiri. His second sister is Danda Sesharattamma. Her husband’s name is Vema Reddy. He is Provident Fund Inspector now working at Visakhapatnam. Vema Reddy is residing in a portion of item purchased by D-8. He does not know how much he is paying towards rent. He is the tenant of 8th defendant. His third elder sister is Uyyuru Lakshmikantamma. Her husband’s name is Hanuman Reddy and they are residing at Vijayawada. This witness also had given the names of the other sisters Dontireddy Satyavathi, Kolli Santakumari, Ragi Annapurnamma, Ronda Jayalakshmi and Padmavathi. This witness also deposed that he does not know whether his father executed any sale deeds in favour of his sisters and he does not know how many properties were acquired by his father and how many properties were sold and he did not enquire about the same and he does snot know with what money he purchased those properties and why he sold. 27. This witness further deposed that his maternal uncle told him about some sale deeds. Uyyuru Vanajakshmi is his mother’s sister and he does not know whether she purchased any property in the locality where item No.2 is situated. She does not know whether his father sold any property in the year 1971. He sold to Kasthuri Ramachandra Rao and he does not know when he sold. Ex.A-4 was given by his maternal uncle. All the documents were given by Rami Reddy his maternal uncle. She does not know whether his father sold any property in the year 1971. He sold to Kasthuri Ramachandra Rao and he does not know when he sold. Ex.A-4 was given by his maternal uncle. All the documents were given by Rami Reddy his maternal uncle. He does snot know why he sold and for what purpose. Eswaramma is his mother. His mother purchased it from Ramachandra Rao. He does not know for how much she purchased. She sold her own property and not of the sale proceeds she purchased the property. This witness also further deposed that he does not know his father got back the property conveyed in the name of his wife Eswaramma now Ramachandra Rao from 22.9.1980. 28. This witness also deposed that his father sold the properties which he got under Will and purchased the properties. But he was unable to give the details or particulars and he cannot say with what sale proceeds he purchased any of the particular items covered by the suit and he cannot say that how much he purchased each of the items. There is no other document except Ex.A-1 to prove the adoption. He cannot say when his father was adopted prior to Ex.A-1. He cannot give any reasons why Ex.A-2 was executed if there was adoption already. Ex.A-2 was given to him by his maternal uncle. He did not read Ex.A-2. He does not know who paid the consideration for Ex.A-2. He can identify the signature of his father. Several details relating to Ex.A-2 had been elicited. This witness also deposed that he does not know with what money he constructed the house and he does not know whether his father was an income tax assessee. He does not know whether his father filed a petition in Additional Subordinate Judge in I.P.No.8 of 1977 to release the property from him and he does snot know whether his advocate filed that petition and he does not know the result of the petition and he does not now remember the contents of any of the deeds marked as Exs.A-2 to A-15 and he does not know whether Meka Malla Reddy obtained a decree against his father only in O.S.No.13 of 1976 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur. He does not know whether there was attachment in execution of that decree. He does not know whether there was attachment in execution of that decree. Auction was in respect of four of the houses in 1st ward Mangalagiri and one house in Nambur. He does not remember whether he included Mangalagiri houses in the suit. This witness also deposed that he does not know whether the Official Receiver filed a petition to set aside the same and he does not know whether the sale was cancelled or not. Though several questions were put to this witness relating to the business and loss of his father, he pleaded ignorance and this witness had given evasive answers. 29. No doubt P.W.1 deposed that they had not divided the properties. This witness also deposed in cross-examination that Ex.B-1 is the registration copy of the sale deed dated 21.7.1984 executed by him and his brother to Murikipudi Madan Mohan represented by his father Madhava Rao. Ex.B2 is the registration copy of the sale deed dated 20.7.1984 executed by him and D-2 to Bhimireddy Nagireddy of Nambur. These two documents relate to the family house situated in Atmakuru. These items covered by Ex.B-1 and B-2 do not belong to him. The purchasers asked him and hence he executed the sale deed. This witness also deposed that he had shown item No.2 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule as Rs.50,000/- being market value. He does not know that how much amount D-8 had purchased. This is the evidence of P.W.1. 30. P.W.2 the attestor of Ex.A-4 was examined. P.W.3 is yet another attestor of Ex.A-4. P.W.4 deposed that he belongs to Mangalalgiri and he lives by cultivation. He knows D1 and K. Ramachandra Rao and he was present at the time of writing and execution of Ex.A-5 in 1969. Under Ex.A-5 Ramachandra Rao purchased the property from D-1. P.W.5 is a resident of Atmakur and this witness deposed that he purchased Ac.1-94 cents about 25 years ago for Rs.10,000/-. D-1 executed a registered sale deed dated 12.6.1962 for himself and on behalf of his minor sons. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Ex.A-9 is the sale deed under which he purchased the property. 31. D.W.1 is the attestor of original of Ex.B-3 sale deed. D.W.2 is the scribe of the sale deed, the original of Ex.B-4. D.W.3 is the attestor of original of sale deed Ex.B-5. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Ex.A-9 is the sale deed under which he purchased the property. 31. D.W.1 is the attestor of original of Ex.B-3 sale deed. D.W.2 is the scribe of the sale deed, the original of Ex.B-4. D.W.3 is the attestor of original of sale deed Ex.B-5. This witness deposed that he was present at the time of execution of Ex.B-5 by D-1. D.W.4 is a resident of Mangalagiri. This witness deposed that D-1 purchased a house property in the name of his wife from one Kasturi Ramachandra Rao and he was scribe of the sale deed Ex.B-6 dated 22.9.1980. 32. D.W.5 deposed that he had attested a document relating to D-1 and he was also identifying witness. This witness also deposed about D-1 being indebted to Vema Reddy and other particulars. This witness also deposed in relation to Ex.B-8. But however, this witness deposed in cross-examination that he does not know about the contents of Exs.B-7 and B-8. 33. D.W.6 deposed that D-1 sold house site to Vanajakshi and D-1 signed and he had attested by putting his signature Ex.B-9 in the said sale deed 17.7.1975 and the original of the same had been attested by him. 34. D.W.7 deposed that he knows D-1. Sesharatnamma is the daughter of D-1 and Vema Reddy is her husband. D-1 sold site to them. He signed it as an attestor and he also signed as identifying witness before Sub-Registrar. They are originals of Exs.B-7 and B-8. 35. D.W.8 deposed that he is a practicing advocate at Guntur and he worked as Official Receiver and this witness deposed in detail about all the events relating to the insolvency proceedings and the relevant documents had been marked through this witness. 36. D.W.9 is the 8th defendant the present appellant. As already referred to above, the 7th defendant was examined as D.W.10 and in the light of the findings recorded by the trial court this evidence of D.W.10 may not be of much importance. 37. The evidence of D.W.8 and D.W.9 may have to be considered, since as already specified above D.W.8 is the Official Receiver and D.W.9 is the present appellant, the 8th defendant in the suit who suffered a preliminary decree relating to item No.2 with which he is concerned with. 38. 37. The evidence of D.W.8 and D.W.9 may have to be considered, since as already specified above D.W.8 is the Official Receiver and D.W.9 is the present appellant, the 8th defendant in the suit who suffered a preliminary decree relating to item No.2 with which he is concerned with. 38. D.W.8 deposed that he worked as Official Receiver from June 1975 to August 1983. D-1 filed I.P.No.8 of 1977 in insolvency court, Guntur to adjudicate him as insolvent. Ex.B-10 is the copy of the petition in I.P. The Official Receiver, Guntur was appointed as interim receiver in the I.P. Copy of I.P. with schedule was sent to Official Receiver, Guntur. Ex.B-10 is with schedules. After he received copy of I.P. the proposed insolvent D-1 approached D-3 and gave statement as directed by the Court to Official Receiver. D-1 was adjudged as insolvent. Ex.B-11 is the certified copy of statement of D-1 handing over all properties to him as Official Receiver. One of the creditors filed a petition before him that item No.2 of ‘A’ schedule was sold in execution of decree in E.P.No.279 of 1976 in O.S.No.12 of 1976 and it has fetched low rate in court auction and so he requested him to file petition to set aside sale and he engaged one advocate Sri B. Sambi Reddy, who filed certificate to the effect that he will not claim any fees from Official Receiver and that he will make his own arrangement regarding fees. On that he signed the application and also informed insolvency court as per rules and the petition was numbered as E.A.No.986 of 1978 in E.P.No.279 of 1976 in O.S.No.13 of 1976 to set aside the sale. The executing court had set aside the said sale. Later the first defendant insolvent got filed memo by his advocate K. Basivi Reddy. D.W.8 also deposed that Ex.B-12 certified copy of memo filed by advocate of insolvent before him to the effect that the E.A.No.986 of 1978 filed by him was allowed and the sale was set aside by insolvency court and requested him to take possession of the property and sell the same after due publication and distribute the proceeds among creditors. After that he had advertised the property for sale as per rules and procedure and sale was posted to 25.02.1980. After that he had advertised the property for sale as per rules and procedure and sale was posted to 25.02.1980. After heavy competition and bidding between bidders, the bid was ultimately knocked down in favour of D-8 for Rs.50,950/-. 39. Here it may not be out of context if the valuation given relating to this item in the plaint schedule also is referred to. Ex.B-13 is the bid list on 12.7.1979. He had put up three items which are houses for auction. They were sold to the respective highest bidders as mentioned in Exs.B-14, B-15 and B-16 bid lists. D-4 became highest bidder for Rs.18,600/- for item No.1 shown in Ex.B-14. D-5 became highest bidder for Rs.16,500/- as shown in Ex.B-15. One Thamma Nagireddy was the highest bidder for the item covered by Ex.B-16 for Rs.16,200/-. On 18.10.1979 another item was sold under Ex.B-17 bid list in favour of D-7 for Rs.40,000/-. At the time of all auctions insolvent and his advocate were present through out. The insolvent made a statement giving symbolical possession of all the properties after taking symbolical possession only he advertised the properties for auction. In pursuance of the auction, he executed sale deeds for the properties covered by Exs.B-14 to B-17 regarding item covered by Ex.B-13 immediately after the sale the present suit was filed by the plaintiff. Then D-8 filed a petition before insolvency court and the insolvency court directed him to take immediate physical possession of the property covered by Ex.B-13. On receiving orders of the court he proceeded to Mangalalgiri, where the property was situated, and took physical possession of the property. Two portions in the house were vacant. In the remaining portion there were tenants. He had taken statements from them under original of Ex.B-18. On 29.4.1980 he had taken possession and also statements of the tenants. The tenants agreed to pay rent to him. After he returned from Mangalagiri with his staff, he received an order from the court restraining him from taking possession of the property and taking any further steps. He had informed insolvency court that he had already taken possession of the property and he refused to execute the sale deed in favour of D-8. After he returned from Mangalagiri with his staff, he received an order from the court restraining him from taking possession of the property and taking any further steps. He had informed insolvency court that he had already taken possession of the property and he refused to execute the sale deed in favour of D-8. On his refusal D-8 moved High Court of A.P. against the order passed by the said court and obtained orders from the High Court directing him to hand over immediate possession to him i.e., D-8 and execute sale deed and to keep 1/3rd of sale proceedings pertaining to plaintiff to be kept in deposit. The order of the High Court was in A.A.O.No.795 of 1981. Accordingly he deposited 1/3rd amount of sale proceeds into court and executed sale deed on 14.12.1981 in favour of D-8. He also delivered the property to D-8. Ex.B-19 is the sale deed dated 14.12.1981 along with annexures. D-8 had taken possession of the property as per rules. Ex.B-20 is the registration extract of sale deed to D-5. Ex.B-21 is registration extract of sale deed in favour of D-6. Ex.B-22 is the registration extract of sale deed in favour of D-7. Ex.B-23 is the registration extract of sale deed in favour of D-4. They had taken possession of the respective properties as per procedure. The insolvent gave him a sworn statement on 18.10.1979 handing over all the properties to Official Receiver. Ex.B-24 is the certified copy of the sworn statement. Ex.B-25 is the certified copy of petition filed by him as Official Receiver in E.A.No.986 of 1978 in E.P.No.279 of 1976 in O.S.No.13 of 1976. 40. It is needless to say that the evidence of D.W.8 would clearly go to show how the properties were put to sale, how sale deeds were executed and under what circumstances the present appellant-D.W.9-D-8 approached this Court and obtained suitable directions. D.W.9 the present appellant is the 8th defendant in the suit. It is pertinent to note that in I.P.No.8 of 1977 the self same party was shown as one of the creditors, respondent No.18. 41. This witness deposed that he purchased item No.2 of plaint ‘A’ schedule in open auction held by D-3. Ex.B-19 is the registered sale deed executed by D-3 in his favour in respect of item No.3 for Rs.50,950/- and he purchased it in the auction held in 1980. 41. This witness deposed that he purchased item No.2 of plaint ‘A’ schedule in open auction held by D-3. Ex.B-19 is the registered sale deed executed by D-3 in his favour in respect of item No.3 for Rs.50,950/- and he purchased it in the auction held in 1980. The auction was held by D-3 on 25.2.1980. At the time of action D-1 was not present. He was sitting out side the auction hall while bid was going on. He had signed in Ex.B-13 bid list. The bid was knocked down in his favour. The bid started at Rs.35,000/-. Apart from him, three persons participated in the auction. B. Pitchi Reddy is viyyanka of D-1. There was severe bid and ultimately it was knocked down at Rs.50,950/-. D-4 is the son-in-law of D-1. Earlier he was the highest bidder for item No.1 of plaint ‘A’ schedule. D-5 was one of the bidders in respect of a portion of item No.1 of plaint ‘A’ schedule. One Thumma Nagireddy is relation of D-1. He was highest bidder for one of the items covered by item No.1. Immediately after bid was knocked down in his favour, sale deed was not executed. After bid was knocked down in his favour, the suit was filed and stay orders were obtained from executing sale deed. Later as per the direction of High Court sale deed was executed in his favour. Ex.B-26 is the certified copy of order in I.A.No.889 of 1980 in I.P.No.8 of 1977 dismissing the said I.A. filed for declaration that the houses purchased by him be declared as exempted under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ex.B-27 is the certified copy of petition with schedule in I.A.No.889 of 1980. Ex.B-10 is the served copy of petition in I.P.No.8 of 1977. Ex.B-28 is the registration extract of sale deed executed by D-3 in favour of D-4 in respect of part of item No.1 of plaint ‘A’ schedule. Ex.B-28 is the registration extract of sale deed executed by D-3 in favour of D-4 in respect of part of item No.1 of plaint ‘A’ schedule. Ex.B-29 is the certified copy of vakalat given by D-1 in favour of the advocate for the present plaintiff. Ex.B-30 is the certified copy of encumbrance certificate showing all the alienations made by D-1 from 1940 to 11.12.1979. Ex.B-29 is the certified copy of vakalat given by D-1 in favour of the advocate for the present plaintiff. Ex.B-30 is the certified copy of encumbrance certificate showing all the alienations made by D-1 from 1940 to 11.12.1979. Ex.B-31 is the served copy of petition in I.A.No.889 of 1980 (same as Ex.B-27). 42. Item No.2 of plaint ‘A’ schedule was sold in court auction in a decree obtained by Meka Mallareddy in O.S.No.13 of 1976 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur. D3 filed a petition to set aside that sale. One Guttikonda Ratnala Reddy alias Ramakrishna Reddy purchased the said item for Rs.25,000/-. D-3 filed the above petition when the item was sold for lesser item. Ex.B-32 is the petition copy filed by D-3 to set aside the sale. D-2 and plaintiff executed a sale deed in favour of Murikipudi Madan Mohan Reddy under original of Ex.B-1; another sale deed under original of Ex.B-2 was executed by them in favour of Bhimireddy Nagireddy. He had taken delivery of item No.2 through court. Ex.B-33 is the certified copy of E.P.No.279 of 1976 in O.S.No.13 of 1976 on the file of Additional Sub-Court, Guntur and orders made thereon. In further chief-examination this witness deposed that Ex.B-34 is the delivery receipt showing that the property purchased by him was delivered to him. Since then the property is in his possession. D-1 never had done cultivation. He used to do business in fertilizers, coal, Lorries transport and he was also doing contract work of roads etc. In cross-examination this witness deposed about the agricultural lands of D-1 and D-1 selling and purchasing agricultural lands and this witness also deposed that he knows D-1 from 1945 and they had financial dealings and he was borrowing money from him now and then after 1960. He had meals hotel at Mangalagiri on G.T. Road. D-1 used to reside in Navuluru. He does not know from whom he purchased the lands. He does not remember the name of the person to whom he sold lands. D-1 used to come to his hotel and on that occasion he used to tell him about his purchases and sale. It is not true to suggest that he is speaking falsehood for the purpose of the suit. 43. In the light of the evidence available on record the following factors appear to be not in serious controversy. D-1 used to come to his hotel and on that occasion he used to tell him about his purchases and sale. It is not true to suggest that he is speaking falsehood for the purpose of the suit. 43. In the light of the evidence available on record the following factors appear to be not in serious controversy. (1) The fact that first defendant was adopted by Pitchi Reddy is not in serious controversy. (2) The fact that Pitchi Reddy executed Ex.A-1, Will, dated 16.10.1928 also is not in serious controversy. (3) P.W.1 himself in his evidence admitted about the fact that this item No.2 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule is a portion of that property which had been purchased out of the sale proceeds of the property covered by Ex.A-1. (4) No doubt, as far as the origin of the property and character of the property, the property in the hands of Pitchi Reddy at the relevant point of time, the evidence is not clear and both parties had not chosen to adduce any acceptable evidence in this regard. (5) The fact that a suit had been instituted and a money decree had been obtained as against the first defendant and the property had been brought to sale also is not in controversy. It is pertinent to note that at that point of time no objection had been taken to the effect that this property cannot be brought to sale or put to sale, the same being joint family property or ancestral property of the first defendant. (6) The fact that the third defendant, Official Receiver, alone raised an objection and to safeguard the general body of creditors an application was moved to set aside sale also is not in controvery. (7) The first defendant had not chosen to contest the matter. (8) The evidence of D.W.9 would throw some light to the effect that the other sales made in favour of other parties are in a way had been upheld by the trial court. These are not put into serious controversy for the reason may be that these parties in a way are interested in the first defendant. This aspect also cannot be lost sight of. These are not put into serious controversy for the reason may be that these parties in a way are interested in the first defendant. This aspect also cannot be lost sight of. (9) It is also pertinent to note that though the sale deeds had been executed in favour of the other parties, the appellant-8th defendant alone had been singled out and he had to approach this Court to obtain suitable directions and in pursuance thereof got the sale deed and got possession. (10) Further the documents Exs.A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-8, A-9, A-10, Exs.B-3, B-4, B-5, B7, B-8, B-9 certain of the documents were executed by the first defendant in individual capacity and certain of the documents were executed as kartha or manager of the family showing the minor children also as parties. (11) It is also not in controversy that Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2 the sale deeds dated 21.7.1984 and 20.7.1984 were executed by P.W.1 and his brother, the second defendant. 44. In the light of this factual background, now the question to be decided is whether the sale made in favour of the appellant, the 8th defendant in pursuance of the court auction to be disturbed by confirming the share i.e., 1/3rd given by the trial court in favour of the first respondent-plaintiff or the same to be disturbed in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 45. As already referred to supra as far as origin of the properties while in the hands of Pitchi Reddy, whether these were the ancestral joint family properties or self acquired properties of Pitchi Reddy, no acceptable evidence had been placed by both the parties. It is pertinent to note that in a matter of this nature such evidence, if any, would be available with the family members. The appellant—8th defendant is only a bona fide purchaser in a court auction, that too, there was debtor and creditor relationship between the 8th defendant and first defendant and may be with fond hope of realizing his amount, he might have been otherwise interested in prosecuting the litigation further and he ultimately participated in the court auction and became a successful bidder. Ex.A-1 is the registered Will executed by the said Pitchi Reddy in favour of the first defendant. The adoption, no doubt, is not in serious controversy. Ex.A-1 is the registered Will executed by the said Pitchi Reddy in favour of the first defendant. The adoption, no doubt, is not in serious controversy. The fact that item No.2 was purchased by the first defendant out of the sale proceeds of the sales effected for such properties covered by Ex.A-1 also being not in serious controversy though an attempt was made by P.W.1 to plead ignorance in cross-examination. 46. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Varada Subadramma V. Dendukuri Venkata Subbaraju and 4 others (Appeal Suit No.1441 of 1989) And Cross Objections (SR) No.42365 of 1989), dated 10th April 2007 wherein the learned Judge of this Court held as hereunder. “Admittedly, the properties originally belonged to late Varada Mallayya. Late Varada Veeranna got the properties under a registered Will dated 21.8.1957 executed by his late father. The validity of the Will, dated 21.8.1957 is beyond doubt. Thus, the properties, which were in the hands of late Veeranna, having got by means of a bequest under the Will, dated 21.8.1957, would certainly constitute as his self-acquired properties. In deed, that was the stand taken by the first respondent herein in the suit, O.S.No.65 of 1985. The validity of the Will, dated 25.7.1977, executed by late Veeranna is beyond any doubt. It is an admitted fact that the Will has not been assailed on any ground that late Veeranna has no such right to limit the estate as his self-acquired property qua his sons and daughters and therefore cannot validly execute the Will.” 47. This is not a suit filed by a Hindu minor after attaining majority challenging alienations made by the father. This question, no doubt, had not been raised and no submissions had been advanced either before the trial court or before this Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to express any further opinion relating to this aspect. This is not a suit filed by a Hindu minor after attaining majority challenging alienations made by the father. This question, no doubt, had not been raised and no submissions had been advanced either before the trial court or before this Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to express any further opinion relating to this aspect. Suffice to state that on a careful reading of the respective stands taken by the parties in the pleadings and also the evidence available on record it appears the first defendant father was an active man doing good business, may be that he might have sustained some loss, and to ward off problems from the creditors, the first defendant appear to have thought of filing I.P. and the insolvency proceedings which had been further carried out, as well deposed by D.W.8 already had been discussed supra. It is not the case of his son that these debts are totally vitiated or tainted with illegality or immorality or these are avyavaharika debts. 48. The counsel representing appellant placed strong reliance on the decision in Pentala Raghavaiah V. Boggavarapu Peda Annmayya ( 1997 (5) ALT 405 ) wherein the learned Judge of this Court emphasized on the doctrine of pious obligation and the applicability thereof under general principles of Hindu Law. The counsel for appellant also placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar ( AIR 1987 SC 558 ) wherein the Apex Court at page 562 observed as hereunder. “This question has been considered by this Court in Commr. Of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567 : ( AIR 1986 SC 1753 ), where one of us (Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.) observed that under the Hindu Law, the moment a son is born, he gets a share in father’s property and becomes part of the coparcenary. His right accrues to him not on the death of the father or inheritance from the father but with the very fact of his birth. Normally, therefore, whenever the father gets a property from whatever source, from the grandfather or from any other source, be it separate property or not, his son should have a share in that and it will become part of the joint Hindu family of his son and grandson and other members who form joint Hindu family with him. Normally, therefore, whenever the father gets a property from whatever source, from the grandfather or from any other source, be it separate property or not, his son should have a share in that and it will become part of the joint Hindu family of his son and grandson and other members who form joint Hindu family with him. This Court observed that this position has been affected by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and, therefore, after the Act, when the son inherited the property in the situation contemplated by Section 8, he does not take it as Kar of his own undivided family but takes it in his individual capacity. At pages 577 to 578 (of SCC): (at p. 1760 of AIR) of the report, this Court dealt with the effect of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the commentary made by Mulla, 15th Edn. Pages 924-926 as well as Mayne’s on Hindu Law 12th Edition pages 918-919. Shri Baneri relied on the said observations of Mayne on ‘Hindu Law’, 12th Edn. at pages 918-919. This Court observed in the aforesaid decision that the views expressed by the Allahabad High Court, the Madras High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court appeared to be correct and was unable to accept the views of the Gujarat High Court. To the similar effect is the observation of learned author of Mayne’s Hindu Law, 12th Edn. page 919. In that view of the matter, it would be difficult to hold that property which devolved on a Hindu under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would be HUF in his hand vis-a-vis his own sons. If that be the position then the property which devolved upon the father of the respondent in the instant case on the demise of his grandfather could not be said to be HUF property. If that is so, then the appellate authority was right in holding that the respondent was a licensee of his father in respect of the ancestral house.” 49. Relating to the nature of the property Sri P. Gopal Das, learned counsel representing first respondent-plaintiff, placed strong reliance on the under noted decisions. (1) Smt. Radhamma & others etc. V. H.N. Muddukrishna & others etc. Relating to the nature of the property Sri P. Gopal Das, learned counsel representing first respondent-plaintiff, placed strong reliance on the under noted decisions. (1) Smt. Radhamma & others etc. V. H.N. Muddukrishna & others etc. (AIR 2006 Karnataka 68) (2) Smt. Neelawwa V. Smt. Shivawwa (AIR 1989 Karnataka 45) (3) C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar V. C.A. Muruganatha Mudaliar and another ( AIR 1953 SC 495 ) (4) Ratan Lal V. Ramesh Chandra and others (AIR 1979 Allahabad 296) 50. There may not be any serious quarrel relating to the propositions of law laid down by the Apex Court and the High Courts in the decisions specified supra. However, here is a case where the trial court recorded certain findings and came to the conclusion that the alienations made relating to item No.1 in favour of D-4, D-5, D-6 and D-7 need no disturbance and accordingly the relief had been negatived. Certain submissions were made that item No.2 also to be treated on the same footing as that of item No.1 and the trial court adopted double standards in this regard. It is no doubt true that the trial court had drawn a distinction while appreciating the facts and also while discussing the evidence in this regard. However, in the light of the admission made by P.W.1 even in chief-examination in relation to the nature of the properties in the context of Ex.A-1 and also further in the light of the fact that the sons of the first defendant i.e., plaintiff and second defendant alone executed certain sale deeds Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2 though certain of the sale deeds had been executed by the first defendant only and certain of the sale deeds the then minors also joined the first defendant, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of any acceptable evidence it may have to be taken that the first defendant as father, kartha, manager of the family had contracted those debts for the sake of the family. In fact, P.W.1 admitted that all the income from the business was being utilized by his father for the sake of family. This admission made by P.W.1 also cannot be lost sight of. 51. Viewed from any angle the findings recorded by the trial court cannot be sustained so far as item No.2 of the plaint schedule is concerned and accordingly the findings are hereby set aside. This admission made by P.W.1 also cannot be lost sight of. 51. Viewed from any angle the findings recorded by the trial court cannot be sustained so far as item No.2 of the plaint schedule is concerned and accordingly the findings are hereby set aside. It is needless to say that as far as other items are concerned items 3, 4 and 5 the preliminary decree made by the trial court to be confirmed. 52. Point No.3: In the light of the findings recorded above, the appellant is bound to succeed and accordingly the appeal is hereby allowed to the extent of item No.2 with which the appellant-8th defendant is concerned. Inasmuch as this Court is allowing the appeal disturbing the decree partly to the extent of item No.2 of ‘A’ schedule only and confirming the preliminary decree relating to items 3, 4 and 5, the parties to bear their own costs. 53. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in pursuance of the direction the Official Receiver had kept 1/3rd of the amount in court deposit. It is needless to say that since the appellant-8th defendant is successful, the said party is entitled to the said amount also.