JUDGMENT : 1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs 1 and 2 challenging the decree and Judgment dated 14.09.2011 in O.S.No.89 of 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Anantapur (for short, 'the trial court'). 2. Appellants 1 and 2 are the Plaintiffs 1 and 2, who filed the suit in O.S.No.89 of 2010 seeking partition and separate possession of Plaintiffs 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties and for costs of the suit. 3. Referring to the parties hereinafter as arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate potential confusion and better comprehend the case. 4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows: (a) Plaintiffs are the minor children of 1st Defendant, represented by their mother, Poola Vijaya. The 2nd Defendant is a 3rd party to the 1st Defendant’s family and the Plaintiffs. The plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the Plaintiffs and 1st Defendant, and they are enjoying the same as undivided joint family members. Recently, disputes arose, and 1st Defendant is acting against the interest of the Plaintiffs’ share in the joint family properties, as he is addicted to bad vices and not at all looking after the welfare of the minors and wasting the income of the joint family for his vices. The Plaintiffs have become aware of the 1st Defendant allegedly creating nominal documents favouring the 2nd Defendant regarding the ancestral property, potentially causing financial harm to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs assert that any such documents if created, should not be legally binding on them. Despite multiple demands, the 1st Defendant has allegedly deferred the partition of the ancestral properties, citing various pretexts, even though he acknowledges the Plaintiffs' rightful share. Numerous panchayats (mediation meetings) have been convened to resolve the disputes, but they have been unsuccessful so far. 5. 1st Defendant remained exparte in the suit. 6. Despite multiple demands, the 1st Defendant has allegedly deferred the partition of the ancestral properties, citing various pretexts, even though he acknowledges the Plaintiffs' rightful share. Numerous panchayats (mediation meetings) have been convened to resolve the disputes, but they have been unsuccessful so far. 5. 1st Defendant remained exparte in the suit. 6. In the written statement, the 2nd Defendant refuted most of the Plaint's averments and contended that the 1st Defendant, his father Poola Narayana and his brother sold Ac.4.88 cents out of Ac.12.19 cents in S.No.151/1, which is item No.1 of suit schedule to 2nd Defendant under registered sale deed dated 25.03.2004; Subsequently, the 2nd Defendant claims to have divided item No.1 of the suit schedule property into plots and sold them to various purchasers, who are presently in possession and enjoyment of their respective portions. The 2nd Defendant further contended that these purchasers are necessary parties to the suit. The 1st Defendant's father, Poola Narayana, is asserted to be the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. As per the 2nd Defendant, Poola Narayana gifted Ac.1.53 cents in item No.3 and Ac.1.43 cents in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property to the 1st Defendant through a registered gift deed dated 08.02.2006. Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was allegedly sold by the 1st Defendant, his father, and brother to Nagaraju and Bala Krishna. These purchasers are said to have developed house plots and sold them to different individuals who are now in possession. Furthermore, the 1st Defendant purportedly sold item No.3 of the plaint schedule property to one Mahaboob Basha and an extent of Ac.0.77 cents in item No.4 to the 2nd Defendant under a registered sale deed dated 13.10.2010. The 2nd Defendant claims to possess and enjoy the said property. The 2nd Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs and their mother knew all these transactions. Additionally, the 2nd Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs filed the suit by suppressing material facts for wrongful gain and providing incorrect details of the plaint schedule items. The corrected details, as per the 2nd Defendant, are as follows: 1. Govt. Dry S.No.151/1 Ac.12.19 cents 2. Govt. Dry S.No.152/1 Ac.13.60 cents 3. Govt. Dry S.No.96 Ac.14.30 cents 4. Govt. Additionally, the 2nd Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs filed the suit by suppressing material facts for wrongful gain and providing incorrect details of the plaint schedule items. The corrected details, as per the 2nd Defendant, are as follows: 1. Govt. Dry S.No.151/1 Ac.12.19 cents 2. Govt. Dry S.No.152/1 Ac.13.60 cents 3. Govt. Dry S.No.96 Ac.14.30 cents 4. Govt. Dry S.No.97 Ac.15.53 cents She further contends that 1st Defendant is working as Junior Assistant at S.K.University, Anantapur and drawing a salary of Rs.12,000/-per month, and he is the kartha of the family and is responsible in respect of the family consisting of wife and children; he has utilized the sale proceeds to develop assets, educate children and construct house; he has purchased a property in the name of his wife, and now, the Plaintiffs are under his care and protection. 7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the suit property is the joint property of the plaintiffs and 1st Defendant? (2) Whether Poola Narayana was the absolute owner of the suit property? (3) Whether Poola Narayana gifted items Nos.3 and 4 of the suit property to the 1st Defendant? (4) Whether the Defendant sold items Nos.3 and 4 of the suit property to the 2nd Defendant and Mahaboob Basha? (5) Whether the 1st Defendant and his father and brothers sold item No.1 of the suit property to the 2nd Defendant? (6) Whether the 1st Defendant and his father and brothers sold item No.2 of the suit property to Nagarajuy and Bala Krishna? (7) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of the suit property? (9) To what relief? 8. During the trial, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and marked Ex.A.1. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, and Exs.B.1 to B.9 were marked. 9. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, 10. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective the trial Court dismissed the suit without costs. parties at length and have reviewed the Judgment and findings recorded by the learned trial Court. I have also re-appreciated all the evidence on record, including the deposition of relevant witnesses examined by both sides. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective the trial Court dismissed the suit without costs. parties at length and have reviewed the Judgment and findings recorded by the learned trial Court. I have also re-appreciated all the evidence on record, including the deposition of relevant witnesses examined by both sides. 11. Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, representing the Appellants/Plaintiffs 1 and 2, has put forth the following arguments: (i) The Plaintiffs assert their rightful ownership of the ancestral property, specifically the plaint schedule property. 1st (ii) Emphasizing that the Defendant is a Government employee, it is argued that there is no apparent necessity for him to sell the plaint schedule property. This circumstance is suggested as evidence that the 1st Defendant is acting against the interests of the Plaintiffs. (iii). Reference is made to the principle that the natural guardian of minors shall not sell or mortgage minor property without prior permission from the Court. (iv). It is contended that, in light of these considerations, the trial court should have decreed the suit for the benefit of the minors' estate. 12. Per contra, Sri N. Aswartha Narayana learned counsel representing the Respondents/Defendants 1 and 2 argued that the trial Court appreciated the case facts and reached a correct conclusion. The reasons given by the trial Court do not require any interference. 13. With regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the Trial Court and in light of the rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following points would arise for determination: 1) Is the trial court justified in holding that Plaintiffs are not entitled to partition the schedule properties? 2) Does the trial Court judgment need any interference? POINT NOs.1 & 2: 14. Per the Orders in I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the Appellants/Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are declared majors by discharging their mother as a guardian. 15. The Plaintiffs' mother is examined as PW.1. She filed the suit on behalf of minor Plaintiffs. According to the Plaintiffs, the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the Plaintiffs and 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant is the Plaintiffs’ father and he became set exparte in the suit. 16. As per the Plaint, the schedule is as follows: Property situated at Itukalapalli village, Anantapur Rural Mandal, Anantapur District, within the S.R.D. and R.D. of Anantapur, i. Govt-Dry. The 1st Defendant is the Plaintiffs’ father and he became set exparte in the suit. 16. As per the Plaint, the schedule is as follows: Property situated at Itukalapalli village, Anantapur Rural Mandal, Anantapur District, within the S.R.D. and R.D. of Anantapur, i. Govt-Dry. S.No.151-1 Ac.1.22 Full Rs.14,76,200-00 ii. Govt-Dry. S.No.152-1 Ac.0.91 Full Rs.11,01,100-00 iii. Govt-Dry. S.No.96 Ac.0.40 Full Rs. 44,000-00 iv. Govt-Dry. S.No.97 Ac.1.52 Full Rs. 1,67,200-00 17. As per the 2nd Defendant, the extent of the land shown in the plaint schedule is incorrect. The extent of the lands of four items is as follows: i. Govt. Dry. Sy. No.151-1 extent Ac.12.19 cents. ii. Govt. Dry. Sy. No.152-1 extent Ac.13.60 cents. iii. Govt. Dry. Sy. No.96 extent Ac.14.30 cents. iv. Govt. Dry. Sy. No.97 extent Ac.15.53 cents. 18. The 2nd Defendant is examined as DW.1. DW.2 is examined to establish that the 1st Defendant is managing his family consisting of his son, daughter and wife; he is educating his children in private schools; Plaintiffs are under the care and protection of 1st Defendant; 1st Defendant has constructed recently big residential house by spending nearly Rs.35,00,000/-. 1st Defendant is a clean character man, and he is not addicted to drinking alcohol, gambling, debauchery, etc.; 1st Defendant is looking after the welfare of his wife and his children, and he is not wasting money. 19. As seen from the issues framed, though there is no controversy concerning specific facts, the trial Court framed as many as nine issues. Issues 2 to 5 are that: (i) Whether Poola Narayana was the absolute owner of the suit property? (ii) Whether Poola Narayana gifted items Nos.3 and 4 of the suit property to the 1st Defendant? (iii) Whether the 1st Defendant sold items Nos.3 and 4 of the suit property to the 2nd Defendant and Mahaboob Basha? 20. In this context, PW.1, during cross-examination, stated that her fa-ther-in-law, Poola Narayana, is the foster son of Poola Peddaiah of Akuthotapalli, and all the family properties were acquired through Poola Peddaiah. PW.1 further testified that Poola Narayana, the 1st Defendant's father, is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, having received the same from his foster father, Peddaiah, through a settlement deed dated 02.11.1955 (Ex.B.7). PW.1 further testified that Poola Narayana, the 1st Defendant's father, is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, having received the same from his foster father, Peddaiah, through a settlement deed dated 02.11.1955 (Ex.B.7). According to PW.1's evidence, Poola Narayana gifted an extent of Ac.1.53 cents in item No.3 and Ac.1.43 cents in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property to the 1st Defendant under a registered gift deed dated 08.02.2006, as evidenced by Ex.B.8. During cross-examination, PW.1 testified that her father-in-law had made this gift to her husband, the 1st Defendant. However, she was unsure about the specific year of the gift and the details of any corresponding gift deed. From the combined evidence of PW.1 and DW.1, along with the referenced documents, it becomes evident that the 1st Defendant acquired the properties covered under items 3 and 4 of the schedule properties through the gift above deed. 21. It is settled law that property obtained by a coparcener on a partition is ancestral joint family property, in which sons have rights notwithstanding that at the time of partition, the dividing member was a sole coparcener. The Plaintiffs have not disputed the right of the 1st Defendant's father to execute a gift deed with respect to items No.3 and 4 of the schedule properties. 22. The trial court's observation is that Ex.B.5, executed by the 1st Defendant and his brother, provides insight into the source of title to the property. It mentions that their father, Narayanappa, acquired the property through a gift deed dated 02.11.1955. Subsequently, it was gifted to the 1st Defendant and his brother under a gift deed dated 08.02.2006, the 1st Defendant's brother on 22.10.2004, and the other brothers on 17.12.2007. The document indicates that they have been enjoying the property since then. These circumstances, according to the trial court, corroborate that at some point, all family members considered the suit schedule properties as the absolute property of the 1st Defendant's father, Narayana. The source of the title is consistently described in documents executed by the 1st Defendant and his brothers in favour of third parties, including the 2nd Defendant, and is supported by reasons. 23. Per the record, the 1st Defendant obtained items 3 and 4 of the schedule properties through a gift deed. The source of the title is consistently described in documents executed by the 1st Defendant and his brothers in favour of third parties, including the 2nd Defendant, and is supported by reasons. 23. Per the record, the 1st Defendant obtained items 3 and 4 of the schedule properties through a gift deed. No evidence has been presented to show that these items of property fell to the share of the 1st Defendant through partition. Therefore, the property covered under the gift deed cannot be considered joint family property of the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant, and at best, it is regarded as the self-acquired property of the 1st Defendant. This Court views that the Plaintiffs have not provided evidence to demonstrate that the property covered under the gift deed fell to their share in a family partition. Despite claiming that the schedule properties fell to the share of the 1st Defendant in a partition, the Plaintiffs did not submit a partition deed. The Plaintiffs have failed to explain how they are entitled to claim rights in their father's properties, which he got right by the gift deed. No foundation is laid in the pleadings. No evidence shows the Plaintiffs' right over the properties covered under the gift deed. 24. DW.1 provides evidence that the 1st Defendant and his brothers, Rajagopal, Nagabushanam, and Nagabhushanam's wife Lakshmi Narayanamma, engaged in various property transactions. They collectively sold an extent of Ac.3.15 cents out of Ac.14.30 cents in Sy.No.86 (item No.3 of the suit schedule property) and an extent of Ac.1.49 cents out of Ac.6.21 cents of Ac.15.53 cents in Sy.No.97 (item No.4 of the suit schedule property) to S. Eliyas Basha, S. Nanne Sab, and S. Topi Sab under a registered sale deed dated 03.03.2008 (Ex.B.5). The 1st Defendant individually sold Ac.0.77 cents of land in Sy.No.97 (item No.4 of the suit schedule property) to S. Eliyas Basha under a registered sale deed dated 13.10.2010 for Rs.85,000/-(Ex.B.6). After the sale vide Ex.B.6, the 1st Defendant purchased land in the name of his wife, an extent of Ac.0.03 cents, for Rs.59,000/-under a registered sale deed dated 25.10.2010 (Ex.B.9). PW.1, the wife of the 1st Defendant, admits these transactions during cross-examination. Furthermore, DW.1 states that the 1st Defendant constructed a house (Ex.B.1) on an extent of Ac.0.06 cents of land, spending an amount of Rs.35,00,000/-. 25. DW.2's testimony aligns with PW.1's statements in cross-examination. PW.1, the wife of the 1st Defendant, admits these transactions during cross-examination. Furthermore, DW.1 states that the 1st Defendant constructed a house (Ex.B.1) on an extent of Ac.0.06 cents of land, spending an amount of Rs.35,00,000/-. 25. DW.2's testimony aligns with PW.1's statements in cross-examination. According to PW.1, with the consideration received by her husband from the 2nd Defendant for the sale of Ac.0.77 cents, they purchased Ac.0.03 cents of land near Samathagram to prevent her husband from wasting money. A photograph (Ex.B.1) shows the door number of their present house, which was constructed three years ago. Another photograph (Ex.B.2) depicts the house; they spent Rs.8,00,000/-on its construction. 26. DW.1, in his chief examination, states that he acquired an extent of Ac.4.88 out of Ac.12.19 cents in Sy.No.151-1 (item No.1 of the suit schedule properties) from the 1st Defendant, his father, and his brothers under a registered sale deed dated 25.03.2004 (Ex.B.4); he subsequently sold it to different individuals by laying plots, and the purchasers are now in possession and enjoyment; an extent of Ac.5.10 cents in item No.2 of the suit schedule property was sold by the 1st Defendant, his father, his four brothers, and another brother’s sons under a registered sale deed dated 25.06.2003 (Ex.B3) to G.Nagaraju and P. Venu Gopala Krishna Yadav of Anantapur town; Nagaraju and Venu Gopala Krishna Yadav sold the same by laying plots to different persons. 27. PW.1, in her cross-examination, admitted that the 2nd Defendant divided the land in Sy.No.155/1 into plots and sold them to various persons; the 2nd Defendant sold the land in Sy.No.96 and Sy.No.97, and the purchasers were in possession. Despite the evidence on record showing that the 1st Defendant, his brothers, and their father sold different extents of the property, the Plaintiffs only filed the suit against the 2nd Defendant. PW.1's admissions reveal that the 2nd Defendant also alienated some properties purchased from the 1st Defendant and his brothers, and PW.1 was aware of these transactions. However, the Plaintiffs did not include the property purchasers from the 2nd Defendant as parties to the proceedings. 28. The Court considers that the suit is not maintainable due to the failure to join the property purchasers from the 2nd Defendant. The appellant must include the registered owners who bought the property from the 2nd Defendant. However, the Plaintiffs did not include the property purchasers from the 2nd Defendant as parties to the proceedings. 28. The Court considers that the suit is not maintainable due to the failure to join the property purchasers from the 2nd Defendant. The appellant must include the registered owners who bought the property from the 2nd Defendant. Since PW.1 was aware of these sale transactions and did not take steps to have the purchasers as parties, the Court views that the suit for partition is not maintainable and should be dismissed for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The trial court has taken a correct view of the matter. 29. This Court views that all properties subject to partition should be included in a suit for partition. Despite PW.1's admission in cross-examination that her husband still owns Ac.1.00 cent of agricultural land, this property is not reflected in the suit schedule. This Court finds that various purchasers bought the property from the 1st Defendant, his brothers, and his father, but these purchasers were not added as parties to the suit. Additionally, although the 2nd Defendant sold some properties acquired from the 1st Defendant and his brothers, the purchasers of these properties were also not included in the suit. 30. This Court observes that the 1st Defendant, by alienating items 3 and 4 of the schedule property, also acquired property in his wife's name. Consequently, this Court concludes that the 1st Defendant acted prudently, and the transaction can be justified based on the principle of benefiting the estate. Therefore, this Court views the necessity for these transactions as reasonable and proper to protect the family's interest. 31. In the case facts, it cannot be said that the property was alienated without legal necessity. The alienation made by the Manager for family necessity or the estate's benefit binds all undivided family members. 32. The trial court's finding that the allegation of Plaintiffs that the 1st Defendant is a vagabond and is irresponsible concerning his family is invented only for the suit and is not supported by the material on record. The evidence on record shows that the 1st Defendant is a responsible Government Servant looking after the family with his salary income, which is corroborated by DW.2, a well-wisher of the 1st Defendant’s family. 33. The evidence on record shows that the 1st Defendant is a responsible Government Servant looking after the family with his salary income, which is corroborated by DW.2, a well-wisher of the 1st Defendant’s family. 33. In Balmukand V. Kamla Wati and others, A.I.R. 1964 SC 1385, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: For a transaction be regarded as of benefit to the family it need not be of defensive character so as to be binding on the family. In each case, the Court must be satisfied from the material before it that it was, in fact, such as conferred or was reasonably expected to confer benefit on the family at the time it was entered into. Where adult members are in existence of the family alone but that of all the adult members of the family, including the Manager. 34. This Court views that, as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the 1st Defendant used the consideration amount from the sale of the schedule property to purchase a property in the name of his wife (PW.1) under Ex.B.9, a registered sale deed. Ex.B.9 indicates that PW.1 was fully aware of the sale transactions conducted by her husband and her brothers. She also acknowledged that she constructed a house, depicted in Exs.B.1 and B.2 photographs, three years ago, spending Rs.8,00,000/-. In light of these facts, this Court upholds the trial Court's finding that PW.1 is fully aware of the appropriation of the sale consideration received by her husband and even acquired the property in her name for the welfare of their children, and this finding cannot be faulted. 35. After careful consideration, the trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence. There is no reason for this Court to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court. I think that the trial Court's findings are correct, and the Appellants have shown no justifiable reasons for arriving at different conclusions. I agree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court. 36. Having considered all the evidence on record and the impugned Judgment, I do not find any valid and legal reasons to interfere with the reasoned Judgment of the trial court. The Appeal suit is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 37. I agree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court. 36. Having considered all the evidence on record and the impugned Judgment, I do not find any valid and legal reasons to interfere with the reasoned Judgment of the trial court. The Appeal suit is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 37. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed by confirming the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.89 of 2010, dated 14.09.2011, passed by the learned District Judge, Anantapur. However, in the circumstances, I refrain from making any order regarding costs. Consequently, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.