way of the abovesaid mortgage effected, it is found that Venugopal Naidu was in a position to obtain a sum of Rs.400/and accordingly, it is seen that it is only Venugopal Naidu who had parted with the sale consideration for acquiring the property under Ex.A3 sale transaction and the same had been rightly determined by the Trial Court, on an appreciation of the materials placed on record and furthermore, as could be seen from the materials placed on record, it is only Venugopal Naidu who had discharged the mortgage debt and as rightly found and determined by the Trial Court, if Venugopal Naidu had not acquired the 5 acres of land under Ex.A3, there would have been no necessity for him to mortgage the said property by way of Ex.A4 mortgage deed and when the mortgage debt is also found to have been discharged by Venugopal Naidu himself, as could be seen from the endorsement found in the mortgage deed, in all, it is found that as determined by the Trial Court, the intrinsic evidence available in the abovesaid documents by themselves would go to disclose that it is only Venugopal Naidu who had acquired the 5 acres of land in R.S.No.140/6 by utilizing the sale consideration obtained by him by way of Ex.A2 sale transaction as well the mortgage amount received by him by way of mortgage transaction Ex.A4 and in such view of the matter, the contention put forth by the first defendant that Venugopal Naidu was not in a position to acquire the 5 acres of land in R.S.No.140/6 during 1964 as such, cannot be accepted and rightly discountenanced by the trial Court based on the appreciation of the abovesaid materials available on record. Inasmuch as Venugopal Naidu had acquired the 5 acres of land independently, on his own, it is found that, he, as a matter of right, had also alienated the extent of 2.50 cents out the same and the fact that Venugopal Naidu had alienated 2.50 cents of land out of the 5 acres is not put under challenge by the first defendant. If really the 5 acres of land had been the joint family property belonging to both the brothers as sought to be put forth by the first defendant, the first defendant would have challenged the sale transaction made by Venugopal Naidu in respect of the 2.50 acres of land out of the 5 acres of land and when it is found that there has been no challenge with reference to the same on the part of the first defendant and on the other hand, the first defendant had admitted the said sale effected by Venugopal Naidu, in all, would go to show that the 5 acres of land had been acquired only by Venugopal Naidu out of his own funds, as pointed out and discussed and no contribution had been given, on the part of the first defendant, in particular, for the acquisition of the said property as projected in the written statement.
