23. ‘A’ schedule property was purchased in the year, 1956 and disputes between the first defendant and his wife in M.C. No.69 of 1955 is also an admitted fact. The Maintenance case was dismissed on 25.02.1956, whereas ‘A’ schedule property was purchased on 08.02.1956, the sale deed was marked as Ex.B.1. Thus, by the date of pronouncing the order in M.C. No.69 of 1955 which was filed against the first defendant by his wife, the property was purchased from Atchaiah and allegedly obtained registered document in the name of Appayamma, sister of the plaintiff and first defendant. In fact, the property was under mortgage with Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Narsipatnam payable by her Vendor, Nagulapally Pedda Atchaiah. Ex.B.2 is the simple mortgage bond dated 10.01.1955. Later, she mortgaged the property under the original of Ex.B.3, dated 14.03.1957, obtained loan and discharged the loan by herself. Exs.B.4 to B.6 are the receipts evidencing the discharge of mortgage debt. Thus, the voluminous evidence on record disclosed that the property was purchased by Appayamma in the year 1956. The plaintiff might be aged 15 years by the date of alleged purchase and thereby the question of his earning and contributing any amount for purchasing the property in the year, 1956, is highly improbable. The recitals of Ex.B.1 clearly show that the property was purchased by Appayamma by paying sale consideration thereunder to Nagulapally Pedda Atchaiah.
