(1) IN these appeals there is no question of law much less any substantial question of law involved. The High court on a careful consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties has, in agreement with the City Civil court, come to a definite finding that the agreement, Ex. E-1, entered into by Smt. J. B. Savithri Reddy, mother of the respondent, purporting to act as his legal guardian during his minority. was sham and nominal and was not intended to be acted upon. It has also held that the said agreement was not binding on the respondent since his mother was not a legal guardian under S. 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The circumstances brought out in the judgment of the High court do give rise to an inference that the agreement relied upon was merely a device to defeat the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the other land laws. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the courts below have rightly exercised their judicial discretion in not decreeing the suit brought by the appellants for specified performance of the alleged contract and in decreeing the suit by the respondent for possession based on trespass. (2) ACCORDINGLY, these appeals must fail and are dismissed. However, having regard to the fact the parties are closely related, we direct that the costs shall be borne by the parties as incurred.