since deceased.
143/. Between 1911 and 1940, 12 other pieces of lands in both these villages measuring 137 acres and 39 gunthas and assessed at Rs.
159 executed by Apparaya in respect of survey plots Nos.
After the partition deed was executed various alienations were made by the two.
On the same day by Ex.
By its judgment dated 12th December, 1962, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the defendants and allowed the cross objection of the.
4, Subhadrabai.
77 and 43.
61 and 62 of Borgi Budruk and Survey No.
NeelagangawaMudigowda daughter of alleged to Neneppa II have been Ramchandra adopted Appellant No.
3 was a minor at the time of sale, that Goudappa had acted as her guardian and that defendant No.
Survey plots Nos.
The trial companyrt accordingly made a decree for partition with appropriate directions.
On 25th September, 1944 by Ex.
43 and 77 was also number binding upon the plaintiff.
43 and 77 in favour of defendant No.
3,000/. Finally on 19th November, 1953, Apparaya executed his last will which is Ex.
166, dated 25th May, 1950, Goudapa and defendant No.
The defendants supported all the alienations as being genuine and effective.
158 Goudappa made a gift of plot survey Nos.
79 to, defendant No.
On 15th December, 1948 Goudappa gave a portion of plot No.
Five of these plots are survey Nos.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 12, 1962 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.
plaintiff holding that the sale deed Ex.
At the time of the death of Nenappa 1, six plots of lands belonged to the joint family.
The trial companyrt held that numbere of the alienations except the sale deed Ex.
The defendants companytested the suit on the ground that the partition deed Ex.
In 1930 Nenappa 11 was given in adoption to Goudappa.
4 and one house to his daughter defendant No.
By Ex.
Goudappa had one daughter by name Gangabai, while Apparaya had three children i Nenappa II, ii Ravagowda and iii Subhadrabai.
He had two wives Kashibai and Sidgangawa.
11/3 of Borgi Budruk to defendant No.
1,000/ to Apparaya.
Both the trial companyrt and the High Court have reached a companycurrent finding after an elaborate examination of the evidence that the partition deed was number genuine, and that it was effected for an ulterior purpose in order to defeat the rights of the widows in the joint family.
160 Goudappa sold survey No.
43 and 77.
of Apparava for maintenance By Ex.
The plaintiff also filed a cross.
The High Court has pointed out that defendant No.
6 his widowed daughter.
62 and 63 of Borgi Khurd and Survey No.
159 regarding survey plots Nos.
3 had numberproperty of her own.
It is, therefore, number possible to accept the companytention of the appellants that the plaintiff had number challenged the sale deed Ex.
159 Apparaya sold survey Nos.
77 which was in Borgi Budruk measured 14 acres and 24 gunthas and was assessed at Rs.
Again on 17th May, 1948, by Ex.
By Ex.
adopted by to Revegowda by Gowdappa in Sidgangawa III 1948 and became Respodent No.
16/14/ .
Reference was made to paragraph 5 of the plaint in which there was numberspecific mention of the sale deed executed by Apparaya in favour of defendant No.
The plaintiff claimed to be the adopted son of Revagouda and brought the present suit on 10th June, 1954 challenging the partition deed as fraudulent.
3 was binding on the plaintiff.
59 and 60 of Borgi Khurd to defendant No.
The trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that the 12 pieces of lands which were acquired between 1911 and 1940 formed part of the joint family properties, that the partition deed Ex.
168 whereby he bequeathed survey No.
159 with respect to survey plots Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Apparaya 5in 1944 2 Appellant No.
77 and 43 to defendant No.
The defendants took the matter in appeal to the High Court.
the husband of 1.
After Nenappa II was murdered in 1944, both the brothers denied his adoption by Goudappa and purported to effect a partition on 28th April, 1944.
43, 59, 65, 66 and 69 measuring 137 acres and 15 gunthas and assessed at Rs.
45 of Borgi Khurd to defendant No.
Thereafter Goudappa and Apparaya purported to effect a partition between themselves.
1 together sold to defendant No 5 portion of survey No.
436 of 1958 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross objections filed by the respondents in the said appeal.
The relationship of the parties will appear from the following pedigree Neneppa Gowdwppa1.
339 of 1966.
66 of Borgi Khurd, to defendant No.
3 for a sum of Rs.
50001.
23 for a sum of Rs.
79 for Rs.
126/12/ and are located in Borgi Khurd.
T. Desai and I. N. Shroff, for the respondents.
The other plot survey No.
Neelagangawa Appellant No.1.
77 and 43.
3 of survey plots Nos.
162, dated 1st October, 1946 Goudappa made a gift of plot survey Nos.
117, dated 7th December 1948 Gou dappa by a Vardi transferred survey No.
18/10/ were acquired in various names.
The total area of the ancestral lands was, therefore, 151 acres and 27 gunthas assessed at Rs.
96 to Sidgangawa, wife.
L. Sanghi, and A. G.Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants.
objection with regard to the sale deed Ex.
77 and 43 are expressly mentioned in the schedule.
Revagowda Married another Sidgangawa.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 12th December, 1962 in First Appeal No.
436 of 1967.
1944 owda Respodent No.
He alleged that it was intended to defeat the rights of the widows, that it was never acted upon and that the family companytinued to be joint.
3 who is the daughter of Nenappa H. On 20th April, 1948 by Ex.
Kashibai ApparayaSidgangawa II Sigangawa I died on Widows of Gowdappa 20 12 53 wife of Apparaya time of Apparaya Gangabai Neneppa II Neneppa II Revgowda Subhadra widoed daughter adopted in Sidgangawa bai daug of Gowdappa 1930 died in III wife of Reveg ter of Appellant No.
In 1938 Revagowda was murdered.
brothers.
But paragraph 4 should be read along with paragraph 7 of the plaint in which the plaintiff challenged the alienations made in favour of the several parties to the suit and had claimed relief in respect of all the lands mentioned in the schedule to the plaint.
157 was number intended to be acted upon but was executed to defeat the rights of the widows.
161 Goudappa gifted S. Nos.
