THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.518 of 2011 September 8, 2011 Between: Kadamati Krishna, S/o.Apparao And another ... Appellants And Kadamati Venkateswara Rao @ Ramana, S/o.Veerraju And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.518 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The plaintiffs, who were unsuccessful in both the Courts below, are the appellants. The plaintiffs and the second respondent (the second defendant) are brothers. They are sons of Kadamati Seetamma and Apparao. The plaintiffs instituted the suit being O.S.No.1264 of 2007 for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants 1, 3 and 4 from making any alterations to suit schedule property and injuncting them from alienating the property. The Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, by judgment and decree dated 13.9.2010, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs and second defendant along with their mother executed sale deed in favour of the father of the first defendant. The same was affirmed in A.S.No.141 of 2010 dated 11.2.2011 by the I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry. Hence the second appeal. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property belonged to Palapalli Papayamma, who was their maternal aunt. She borrowed some amount from one Padala Satyanarayana Reddy under mortgage deed dated 16.7.1970. She could not discharge mortgage debt. She executed Will dated 14.6.1972. She bequeathed life interest to Seetamma (mother of the plaintiffs and second defendant) and vested remainder to plaintiffs expressing her wish that the mortgage debt should be discharged by Seetamma and her three minor sons. They alleged that Kadamati Veerraju, father of the first defendant, misrepresented and made Seetamma to execute sale deed dated 24.7.1974 and obtained possession. The alienation made by Seetamma, who had only life interest in the property, is invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs. Therefore, they filed the suit seeking relief as noticed herein above. The first defendant opposed the suit. He pleaded that so as to discharge the debts, Seetamma and her three sons, who are minors at the relevant time, executed the sale deed in favour of his father on 24.7.1974 and, therefore, the sale deed was executed by Seetamma as guardian of her children is valid alienation. During the trial, the plaintiffs examined two witnesses. The defendants examined four witnesses. Exs.A1 to A7 for plaintiffs and Exs.B1 to B17 for defendants were marked. The trial Court recorded finding that Ex.A3 sale deed in favaour of Veerraju was executed by Seetamma on behalf of her minor sons and that such sale was valid as per Will, Ex.B17, under which Papayamma desired the mortgage debt under Ex.B8 be discharged by sale of the property by Seetamma and her minor sons. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The appellate Court considered the competency of Seetamma to execute sale deed on behalf of minor cons. Relying on Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India[1], the appellate Court held that the sale deed executed in favour of Veerraju by Seetamma being the head of the family was valid and, therefore, the plea of plaintiffs is unfounded. The appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The Counsel for the appellants submits that under the Will, Ex.B17, Papayamma gave only life interest to Seetamma and, therefore, she could not have executed Ex.A3 sale deed in favour of Veerraju, father of the first defendant. This submission cannot be accepted. On appreciating the Will (Ex.B17), the mortgage deed (Ex.B8) executed by Papayamma in favour of Satyanarayana Reddy and the sale deed (Ex.A3) executed by Seetamma representing her minor sons, recorded finding that the sale deed executed by Seetamma was valid. The appreciation of evidence and the documents by the Courts below are sound and the findings are supported by convincing and concurrent reasons. The question of fact recorded by the Courts below does not require any interference. The second appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _______________ September 8, 2011 (V.V.S.RAO, J) YS [1] AIR 1999 SC 1149