KASIPATHI Vs. ESUBBA RAO PAWER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions of law have been, urged by Sri Vedant Iyengar, the learned Counsel for the appellant, in support of his appeal. Firstly he contended that on the proved facts of the case the Courts below were wrong in opining that the respondent (first defendant) is a bona fide purchaser of (be suit property and that he is entitled to any benefit under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, Secondly he urged that under any circumstances the plaintiff should have been given the option of either paying the value of the improvements effected by the respondent or to sell the suit property to him; The Courts below were not right in directing the respondent to purchase the right of the plaintiff.

(2.) As found by the Courts below, the plain-riff appellant is the prior purchaser of the suit property and thus he had acquired a valid little to the suit property. The sale in Favour of the predecessor-in-title of the respondent under Exhibit IV being of a later date, the same cannot affect the validity of the sale in favour of the plaintiff under Exhibit A dated 8-6-1938. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the respondent is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the sale in favour of the plaintiff. The appellant contends that this conclusion, is on the face of the records, unsustainable and the same has been arrived at by ignoring important pieces of evidence.

(3.) The trial Court refused to grant a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff on certain fallacious grounds. It stated: