SAVITA ALIAS GEETHA Vs. H S ACHILLA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the appellants were the plaintiffs before munsiff, hassan in original suit No. 193 of 1973. They sought for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,575/- from defendants 1 to 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the two lower courts negativing the relief to him against defendants 2 and 3, they have preferred this appeal.

(2.) the case put forward by them is, that the properties described in the plaint 'a' schedule formerly belonged to the 1st defendant who sold plots 1 and 2 to the 3rd defendant and plots 3 and 4 to him. He later purchased plots 1 and 2 from 3rd defendant. The 1st defendant was due certain monies to manjarabad taluk co-operative land development bank, on the security of these properties sold by him and certain other properties. The 1st defendant sold his other properties for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the 2nd defendant and out of the sale consideration, he left a sum of Rs. 9,000/- with the 2nd defendant himself to discharge the loan due by him to the aforesaid bank. The 2nd defendant did not discharge the amount due by the 1st defendant to the bank and therefore the bank in turn brought the properties purchased by the plaintiff to sale. In order to save his properties, plaintiff had to pay a sum of Rs. 2,250/- to the said bank and therefore he sought to recover that amount with interest of Rs. 300/- and notice charges of Rs. 25/- from all the three defendants. The 1st defendant remained ex-parte. 2nd defendant did not dispute the various sales nor did he dispute the sale by 1st defendant in his favour and the further averment that a sum of Rs. 9,000/- was left with him for discharging dues of 1st defendant. Though he was not prepared to admit the payment of money by plaintiffs to the bank, he did not specifically deny the same. Anyway, he took the contention that there was no contractual relationship between him and the plaintiff and hence the jatter had no locus standi to seek any kind of relief from him. The 3rd defendant has also denied his liability to pay the amount claimed.

(3.) after contest the suit was decreed only against defendant No. 1 and the suit as against defendants 2 and 3 came to be dismissed by munsiff, hassan. The plaintiffs preferred r.a. No. 38/1976 on the file of the civil judge, hassan to fasten the liability against defendants 2 and 3 but he did not meet with any success there. Being aggrieved by the refusal of the courts below to grant any relief against defendants 2 and 3, the plaintiff has approached this court.