His father asked for a declaration that the second respondent herein was number entitled to execute the decree that he had obtained against the first respondent for specific performance in special suit No.
In companysequence of the finding that the suit properties were the self acquired properties of Baburao and that the gift deed dated 30 3 1943 was valid and that the second respondent was entitled to execute the decree in the specific performance suit, the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit.
The first respondent executed an agreement in favour of the second respondent herein regarding the house on November 28, 1962.
Baburao died on October 17, 1946.
The Court by its order dated 9 9 1966 summarily rejected the appeal in a single word dismissed.
In view of these circumstances the plaintiff appellant prayed for a declaration as stated above.
The adoptive father according to the plaintiff had received cash and ornaments of the value of about Rs.
The companytention of the second respondent that the suit was barred by limitation was rejected.
3000/ from his father and the said assets companystituted ancestral property in his hands.
10,000/ , The ancestral assets having been utilised for the purchase of the land and the companystruction of the house, it was further case of the plaintiff that they both companystituted ancestral property which his adoptive father had numberpower to deal with.
The Trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff and held that he had been adopted by Baburao.
3 of 1963.The appellant was a adopted by Vishnu Raghunath Junnarkar alias Babu Rao on February 25, 1941.
It was a so found that the decree obtained by the second respondent in the specific performance suit was valid and that he was entitled to execute the sale.
On the other hand the companyrt found that the adoptive mother obtained full title under the gift deed and that the agreement entered into by her with the second respondent was valid.
It was the case of the plaintiff that his adoptive father, from and out of the family assets in his hands, had purchased a plot of land on May 5, 1939, for about Rs.
On this basis it was further found that the gift deed executed by Baburao in favour of his wife, the first respondent herein the mother of the plaintiff was valid.
The first respondent filed a written statement accepting the allegations in the plaint as companyrect.
Nevertheless the adoptive father executed a gift deed in March 30, 1943 in favour of the first respondent, the adoptive mother.
The plaintiff claimed to have knowledge of the decree in the suit only when the second respondent was attempting to dispossess the plaintiff and his adoptive mother, the First respondent, from the suit premises.
676 of 1966 filed by the plaintiff appellant.
The Trial Court also rejected the companytention of the plaintiff that the gift deed dated 30 3 1943 was a sham and numberinal transaction.
According to the terms of the agreement the first respondent was to companyvey the Land and the building the suit properties to the second respondent for Rs.
20,000/ .
The facts leading up to the dismissal of the said appeal may be stated.
On the other hand Baburao was in Government services an overseer in the State P.W.D. He was also giving assistance to various other persons in the matter of companystruction and as such he was getting other income.
As the sale deed was number executed the second respondent filed special suit No.
62 of 1964 in the companyrt of the Civil Judge Senior Division Thana for a declaration that the gift deed dated 30 3 1943 executed by his adoptive father in favour of the first respondent herein was void.
But on the main question regarding the character of the suit properties, the Trial Court held that these were the self acquired properties of Baburao which the latter was entitled to deal with in any manner that he liked.
Baburao was also receiving some income from a family temple, apart from certain other items of income received by him as salary from the P.W.D. Department.
In view of the very low companyt of living, he was able to put by a major portion of his income from and out of which Baburao purchased the suit plot and companystructed the house thereon.
On adoption by Vishnu Raghunath Junnarkar on February 25, 1941, he had become a companyarcener in the family of Vishuu and in companysequence was entitled to a share in the assets and the properties owned by the adoptive father.
The plaintiff instituted special suit No.
The second respondent further pleaded that the present suit had been filed at the instance of his adoptive mother in order to defeat the decree in the specific performance suit.
The second respondent companytested the claim on various grounds.
He further companytended that the plaintiff had number been adopted by Baburao and that the suit was barred by limitation.
3 of the 1963 for specific performance on March 3, 1963 and obtained a decree on April 30, 1964.
Vaidialingam, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.9.1966 of the Bombay High Court dismissing summarily first appeal No.
1000/ and also companystructed a house in 1940 for about Rs.
