Supreme Court upholds High Court ruling on property dispute, deems partition deed invalid.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeal with costs. The partition deed was deemed a sham transaction, the 12 pieces of land were considered joint family properties, and the sale deed regarding survey plots was found to be invalid and not binding on the plaintiff.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the partition deed executed on 28th April, 1944.
2. Whether the 12 pieces of land were joint family properties or self-acquisitions of Goudappa.
3. Legitimacy of the sale deed Ex. 159 regarding survey plots Nos. 43 and 77.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Partition Deed Executed on 28th April, 1944:
The primary issue was whether the partition deed executed by Goudappa and Apparaya on 28th April, 1944, was a sham transaction intended to defeat the rights of the widows. Both the trial court and the High Court found that the partition deed was not genuine and was executed for an ulterior purpose. The courts noted the unequal division of lands and the absence of the Panchas' signatures, which indicated the transaction was not genuine. The courts also observed that the brothers continued to live jointly and managed the properties together even after the partition deed. The Supreme Court upheld these findings, emphasizing that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts should be accepted as correct in an appeal by special leave. The Court rejected the appellants' argument that there was no evidence supporting the lower courts' findings.

2. Whether the 12 Pieces of Land Were Joint Family Properties or Self-Acquisitions of Goudappa:
The appellants contended that the 12 pieces of land were self-acquisitions of Goudappa, whereas the respondents claimed they were joint family properties. The Supreme Court reiterated the established legal principle that if a joint family possesses a nucleus of property, any acquisition made by a family member is presumed to be joint family property unless proven otherwise. Both lower courts found that the family had an adequate nucleus of joint family properties, which could have facilitated the acquisitions. The Supreme Court agreed with these findings, noting that the income from the nucleus was sufficient for the purchases. The Court dismissed the appellants' argument that Goudappa had a separate income from a business, as there was no substantial evidence to support this claim.

3. Legitimacy of the Sale Deed Ex. 159 Regarding Survey Plots Nos. 43 and 77:
The High Court allowed the cross-objection of the respondents concerning the sale deed Ex. 159, which related to survey plots Nos. 43 and 77. The appellants argued that the plaintiff did not specifically challenge this sale deed in the plaint. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the plaintiff had challenged all the alienations in the schedule to the plaint, which included these survey plots. The High Court found that defendant No. 3, who was a minor at the time of the sale, had no property of her own and that the sale was conducted by Goudappa as her guardian. The sale was deemed without consideration and not genuine, thus not binding on the plaintiff. The Supreme Court upheld this finding.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 12th December, 1962, dismissing the appeal with costs. The partition deed was found to be a sham transaction, the 12 pieces of land were deemed joint family properties, and the sale deed Ex. 159 regarding survey plots Nos. 43 and 77 was invalid and not binding on the plaintiff.

---