CHIKKAHANUMA ALIAS MOTA Vs. VENKATAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiff against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Kolar, in R.A. No.115/1961, modifying the decree passed by the Munsiff, Kolar, in U.S. No.23/1960. Respondent 3 in the second appeal has also filed his cross objecctious in so far as the decree by the Civil Judge has gone against him.

(2.) The suit relates to three items of properties. The suit is for a declaration of the title of plaintiff 1 and possession in in respect of items 2 & 3 In respect of item 1, the suit is for a declaration of the both the plaintiffs and for possession The plaintiffs had previusly filed O.S.No.351/58 for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the first item of suit schedule property only. The plaintiff's sought permission to withdraw from the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter. The Court, grauned permission on the 14th of December 3959 subject to tho condition that the plaintiffs pay half the costs to Gidda (defendant 1 in the present suit) before instituting a fresh suit. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

(3.) Defendant 1 challenged the decree passed by the learned Munsiff in the Court of the Civil Judge Kolar. The learned Civil Judge confirmed the decree of the trial Court in so far as suit items 2 and 3 are concerned. He, however, allowed the appeal of defendant 1 in regard to suit item No.1 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs in regard to suit item No.1. The learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that as the costs were not paid by the plaintiffs before the institution of the present suit, the suit is not competent even though the costs have been subsequently paid.