LAKSHMIDEV AMMA Vs. DODDA LAKKANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the decree passed by the Prl dist Judge, Bangalore, in RA. 81 of 1968 affirming the decree passed by the prl Civil Judge, Bangalore in OS.308 of 1964.

(2.) The suit was tiled by the plaintiff Smt. Lakshmidevamma by her next friend and guardian Sri Begur Narayana Rao, her husband, for a declaration that the sale deed dated 8th Nov., 1951 in favour of the defendant is null and void and that the plaintiff continues to be the owner of the suit schedule property. for possession, for past mesne profits of Rs. 3,000 and for future mesne profits.

(3.) The suit property is a house bearing No. 190 in Puttanna Road, Basavangudi, Bangalore-4. The Corporation of the City of Bangalore instituted OS.8 of 1949-50 in the Court of the First. Munsiff, Bangalore, to. recover a sum of Rs.95 towards the arrears of taxes. An ex parte decree came to be passed on 10th Septr 1949. In execution of the said ex parte decree, the suit property was brought to.. sale and the same was sold for Rs.2,000 in favour of the defendant. After coming to know of the ex parte decree and the sale of the suit property, the plaintiff filed applications for setting aside the ex parte decrees and also for setting aside the sale. The Court of first instance set aside the ex parte decree, which order came to be affirmed by this Court in CRP. 15 of 1955. This Court held that as the plaintiff was a lunatic and as she was not represented by her next friend, the decree passed in OS. 9 49-50 is a nullity . The application filed by the plaintiff for setting aside the sale was also allowed by the Court of first instance. But the Addl Civil Judge, Bangalore, in RA.233 of 1956 set aside the said order and affirmed the sale. The said order was confirmed by this court in CRP.1085 of 1958. This Court held that as the plaintiff was not a party to the suit and the decree if1 execution of which the sale was held, her application could not be entertained either under Or.21, R.90 or Sec. 47 of the CPC. The net effect of the said decision was that the proper remedy for the plaintiff was to institute an appropriate suit. It is in this background that the present suit came to be instituted.