maint enance 346 30 1 37 Plff.
It also gave further directions in the matter of partition, companyts and mesne profits.
It declared that the deeds executed by the deceased on January 4 and 5, 1944 in favour of defendants 6, 7 and 8 were invalid as also the gift over in favour of defendant 5.
335 of 1960, and defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5, the legal repre sentatives of defendant 7 and defendant 8 preferred Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO J. These two appeals by certificate arise out of Special Civil Suit No.
January 4 and 5, 1944.
It held that, as defendants 1 and 2 were getting a share in the property, they were number entitled to separate maintenance given to them under the deed executed by their husband and directed that property also should be brought into the hotchpot and divided between the Parties.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated 16/17th August 1955 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.
334/60 and respondents Nos.
C. Chatterjee, S. Venkatakrishnan and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondents in C.A. No.
companytesting defendants denied the factum and validity of the adoption of defendants by the plaintiffs and they asserted that defendant 4 was the posthumous son of Chanbasappa by Ven kamma, the second defendant.
These two documents were executed by Chanbasappa at a time when he was the sole surviving companyarcener, whereas he executed the documents in favour of defendants 1 and 2 after the 4th defendant was companyceived.
The alienees sought to sustam.
4, 5 and 13 in C.A. No.
The plaintiff and defendant 3 preferred an appeal to the High Court, being First Appeal No.341 of the 1950 against the decree of the Civil Judge insofar as it went against them.
334 of 1960 and respondents 6, 9 to 11 and 12 in Civil Appeal No.
He directed an enquiry as to the future mesne profits from the date of the suit.
Plaintiff and defendant 3 preferred Civil Appeal No.
F. Viswanatha Sastri, M. Rajagopalan and K. R. Chaudhri for appellants Nos.
335/60 .
335 of 1960, companytends that the gift deeds executed by, Chanbasappa in favour of defendants 7 and 8 were binding on the members or the family.
the validity of the alienations in their favour.
1 and 3 in C.A. No.
On the basis of this distinction the High Court rightly set aside the alienations made in favour of defendants 1 and 2.
on January 4, 1944, in favour of defendants 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were vitiated by fraud and that the plaintiff was entitled to one sixth share in the suit.
341 of 1950.
334 of 1960 and appellants in Civil Appeal No.
It declared that the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 were each entitled to 4/27 share in the suit property, that defendant 3 was entitled to 1/9 share therein, and defendant 4 was entitled to 4/9 share therein.
Nagamma Deed of maint enance 347 14 2 39 Plff.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
334 of 1960 to this Court against the decree of the High Court insofar as it went against them.
334/60 and respondents Nos.
defendant 4 was born to defendant 2 by the deceased that the plaintiff had.
As many as, 12 issues were, framed in them case, The learned Civil judge found that defendant 3 was taken in adaption by the plaintiff on January 30, 1944, but,it was invalid in law that.
Gopalkrishnan, for appellants Nos.
He declared that the deeds executed by the deceased in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the defendants were binding on the parties to the suit.
Nagamma Deed of Gift.
property and for partition and recovery of the same.
In the result he passed a decree for partition and delivery of the plaintiffs one sixth share in the property.
August 19, 1963.
1 and 3 in C.A. No, 335/60 .
4, 5 and 13 in C.A. Nos.
335/60 .
The plaintiff, one of the three surviving widows of Chanbasappa, filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of her share after setting aside the alienations made by her hus band on.
failed to prove that the deeds executed by Chanbasappa.
334 and 335 of 1960.
6, 9 to 11 and 12 in C.A. No.
3714 1 44 D 8 Neelamma Deed of Plt.
The former were executed when he had absolute power of disposal, whereas the latter were executed when he had ceased to have the said power.
335/60 .
Defendant 3 naturally supported the plaintiff, and the other defendants companytested the suit.
He also held that defendants 1 and 2 would each be entitled to one sixth share and that defendant 4 would be entitled to three sixths share therein.
6, 9 to 11 and 12 in C.A. No.
334/60 and the appellants in C. A. No.
334/1960 and respondents Nos.
47 of 1946 filed by Nagamma, wife of Chanbasappa, for partition and possession of one sixth share in the plaint scheduled properties with mesne profits.
To that suit, Guramma and Venkamma, the other two widows of Chanbasappa, were made defendants 1 and 2 the alleged adopted son, defendant 3 the alleged posthumous son, defendant 4 and the alienees, defendants 5 to 8.
Naunit Lal, for appellants Nos.
