NARAYAN GOVIND HEGDE Vs. KAMALAKARA SHIVARAM HEGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave the appellant has assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1992 of 1977. The parties herein shall be referred to as arrayed in the application filed under Section 37 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') read with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Munsif at Sirsi, Karnataka.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

(3.) The applicant before the learned Munsif, Kamalara is the son of the opposite party No. 3 viz. Smt. Yenki Shri Ganpathi opposite party No. 2 lent a sum of Rs. 650/- the opposite party No. 3, who executed a promissory note in his favour. The opposite party No. 2 filed an application against Smt. Yenki, opposite party No. 3 under the provisions of the Act and obtained an award on 23-9-1948. By the award a charge was created over the properties mentioned in the award which included the present disputed land. The award was put into execution and the disputed suit land was auctioned. Shri Narayan opposite party No. 1 purchased it in Court auction and took possession on 5-9-1956. The father of the applicant died on 15-8-1946 and at that time the applicant was born on 25-3-1947. In 1959 the brother-in-law of the applicant filed a civil suit for injunction restraining opposite party No. 1 from taking possession of the disputed land, on behalf of the applicant, as his next friend, which was dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court had no power to go into legality or otherwise of the order passed under provisions of the Act. The appeal was also dismissed. In 1956, the said next friend filed an application under Section 37 of the Act which was dismissed as the learned counsel for the next friend represented that he had no instruction. On attaining majority, the present application was filed before the learned Munsif, which was dismissed. Being aggrieved, as appeal was filed by the applicant, which was allowed and the revision petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the impugned order, by the High Court and hence the present appeal.