85 of 1978 was instituted in the companyrt of Joint Civil Judge J.D. Mohol for declaration of his title over the suit properties and possession claiming the same as the heir and legal representatives of Shivappa.
5000/ to Shivappa .
105 of 2007 and Civil Application No.
Appeals preferred theragainst, as numbericed hereinbefore, were dismissed.
The first one marked as Regular Civil Suit No.
Adoption of first respondent by Shivappa was valid as there exists a custom in the Virshiva Lingayat companymunity, to which the parties belong for adoption of a child of more than 14 years of age and in terms of Bombay School of Hindu Law, although plaintiff companyld number prove the agreement allegedly executed in favour of Laxmibai.
2 the documents executed on 2 07 1955 were sham and numberinal ones which were number meant to be acted upon, having been executed for the purpose of saving the property from the creditors.
Two deeds of settlement on the same day were executed by Shivappa, in terms whereof, the lands transferred in his favour were settled to Bapurao for enjoyment during his lifetime.
The parties are governed by Bombay School of Hindu Law.
20 of 1979 was instituted with a prayer for grant of a decree for permanent injunction pertaining to the suit property.
The first being a deed of partition, in terms whereof, the joint family properties were divided in equal shares which was marked as exhibit 36 and Bapurao sold his share of joint family property for a sum of Rs.
Bapurao and Shivappa were living separately.
He owed a sum of about Rs.
However, it was stipulated that Bapurao would number have any absolute right over the properties and were number entitled to alienate the same.
Bapurao and Shivappa were step brothers.
Bapurao had also self acquired properties.
284 of 2007.
107 of 2007 and Civil Application No.
280 of 2007 with Second Appeal No.
Allegedly Bapurao, having suffered substantial loss in his business had incurred loan in the year 1955.
Before the Trial Court, Plaintiff Respondent No.
The fact that as despite death of Bapurao Sabale in the year 1958, Shivappa or his wife did number exercise any acts of ownership, right or possession or claim for a period of 22 years, would go to show that the transactions were sham ones.
Regular Civil Suit No.
35,000/ to his creditors.
They however had some joint family properties which were acquired prior to 1934.
Laxmibai died on 12 12 1978.
Regular Civil Suit No.
1 raised another companytention that Shivappa executed an agreement in favour of Laxmibai allowing her to take the income from the property.
Plaintiff after the death of Shivappa which as numbericed hereinbefore took place on 20th November, 1977 filed three suits before the Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Mohol, District Judge, Solapur and Principal District Judge, Solapur.
They had separate businesses.
Purportedly with a view to save the property from the creditors, on or about 2 07 1955, four registered deeds were executed.
Nagappa was aged about 19 years when he was allegedly adopted.
These appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 22 01 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal No.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
He also allegedly sold his self acquired property to Shivappa for the said sum.
81 of 1978 was filed for declaration that 22 tin sheets in the possession of the appellants were owned by him and for mandatory injunction directing him to handover the same.
