is found that with a view to discharge the said debt as well as the other debts incurred by him for the upkeeping of the family and considering the documents projected as Exs.B3 to B6 being the receipts issued in the name of the first defendant by the Society concerned and others for the discharge of the debts, in all, as rightly determined by the first appellate court, it is found that the first defendant's family had been burdened with various institutional debts and accordingly to clear the said debts, the first defendant had been been necessitated to alienate certain joint family properties and accordingly it is found that he had alienated certain properties in favour of the second defendant by way of Ex.B1 sale deed and in turn, it is also noted that the second defendant had discharged the debts of the first defendant as could be gathered from the materials placed on record. In this connection, the witness examined on behalf of the defendants would depose about the various debts incurred by the first defendant from the banks and accordingly it is found that only to discharge the various debts, the first defendant had been necessitated to alienate certain properties belonging to his family to the second defendant. As rightly determined by the first appellate court based on the evidence adduced by the defendants in toto, it is found that if the properties not been sold by the first defendant to the second defendant and if the debts incurred by the first defendant not been discharged by the second defendant, it is seen that the properties belonging to the family of the first defendant would have been brought for sale and accordingly only to avoid the same, it is noted, as determined by the first appellate court, the first defendant had alienated the joint family properties to the second defendant and accordingly the debts incurred by him had been discharged.
