126/12/ and are located in Borgi Khurd.
3 was binding on the plaintiff.
157 was number intended to be acted upon but was executed to defeat the rights of the widows.
3 of survey plots Nos.
16/14/ .
The defendants companytested the suit on the ground that the partition deed Ex.
On 25th September, 1944 by Ex.
3 who is the daughter of Nenappa II.
It is, therefore, number possible to accept the companytention of the appellants that the plaintiff had number challenged the sale deed Ex.
The High Court has rejected the evidence of D.W. 3, Imamsaheb as worthless.
143/. Between 1911 and 1940, 12 other pieces of lands in both there villages measuring 137 acres and 39 gunthas and assessed at Rs.
66 of Borgi Khurd, to defendant No.
The High Court has pointed out that defendant No.
The plaintiff also filed a cross objection with regard to the sale deed Ex.
436 of 1958 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross objections filed by the respondents in the said appeal.
59 and 60 of Borgi Khurd to defendant No.
By Ex.
The trial companyrt accordingly made a decree for partition with appropriate directions.
1948 Goudappa gave a portion of plot No.
After Nenappa was murdered in 1944, both the brothers denied his adoption by Goudappa and purported to effect a partition on 28th April, 1944.
5000/. On the same day by Ex.
In 1930 Nenappa II was given in adoption to Goudappa.
161 Goudappa gifted S. Nos.
He had two wives Kashibai and Sidgangawa.
5 portion of survey No.
By its judgment dated 12th December, 1962, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the defendants and allowed the cross objection of the plaintiff holding that the sale deed Ex.
The defendants supported all the alienations as being genuine and effective.
It is further admitted by defendant No.
3 had numberproperty of her own.3,000/. Finally on 19th November, 1953, Apparaya executed his last will which is Ex.
77 and 43 are expressly mentioned in the schedule.
On 20th April, 1948 by Ex.
The defendants took the matter in appeal to the High Court.
77 and 43 to defendant No.
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.
By Ex.
159 regarding survey plots Nos.
168 whereby he bequeathed survey No.
The relationship of the parties will appear from the following pedigree ???
158 Goudappa made a gift of plot survey Nos.
117, dated 7th December, 1948 Goudappa by a Vardi transferred survey No.
159 executed by Apparaya in respect of survey plots Nos.
43 and 77.
159 with respect to survey plots Nos.
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.
61 and 62 of Borgi Budruk and Survey No.
At the time of the death of Nenappa I, six plots of lands belonged to the joint family.
79 to defendant No.
Five of these plots are survey Nos.
1 together sold to defendant No.
3 for a sum of Rs.
4 and one house to his daughter defendant No.
43 and 77 was also number binding upon the plaintiff.
79 for Rs.
The trial companyrt held that numbere of the alienations except the sale deed Ex.
160 Goudappa sold survey 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.
96 to Sidgangavva, wife of Apparaya for maintenance.
45 of Borgi Khurd to defendant 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.
166, dated 25th May, 1950, Goudappa and defendant No.
162, dated 1st October, 1946 Goudappa made a gift of plot survey Nos.
6 his widowed daughter.
In 1938 Revagowda was murdered.
Revagowda married another Sidgangawa.
After the partition deed was executed various alienations were made by the two brothers.
77 which was in Borgi Budruk measured 14 acres and 24 gunthas and was assessed at Rs.
77 and 43.
Goudappa had one daughter by name Gangabai, while Apparaya had three children i Nenappa II, ii Ravagowda and iii Subhadrabai.
77 and 43.
3 was a minor at the time of sale, that Goudappa had acted as her guardian and that defendant No.
62 and 63 of Borgi Khurd and Survey No.
11/3 of Borgi Budruk to defendant No.
On 15th December.
23 for a sum of Rs.
159 Apparaya sold survey Nos.
Thereafter Goudappa and Apparaya purported to effect a partition between themselves.
The other plot survey No.
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.
43, 59, 65, 66 and 69 measuring 137 acres and 15 gunthas and assessed at Rs.
By Ex.
43 and 77 in favour of defendant No.
Again on 17th May, 1948, by Ex.
The total area of the ancestral lands was, therefore, 151 acres and 27 gunthas assessed at Rs.
Survey plots Nos.
1,000/ to Apparaya.
4, Subhadrabai.
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.
The plain tiff claimed to be the adopted son of Revagouda and brought the present suit on 10th June, 1954 challenging the partition deed as fraudulent.
18/10/ were acquired in various names.
