LAWS(KAR)-1990-9-27

T G Vs. T R BHEEMASINGH

Decided On September 05, 1990
T.G.BYRANNA Appellant
V/S
T.R.BHEEMA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly, the appellant is a defendant who suffered a preliminary decree in a suit for redemption of mortgage of immoveable property. After having failed in a series of appeals including a second appeal to this Court against the preliminary decree, he pleaded that final decree proceedings could not be drawn up against him, as he had an agreement with the decree-holder to the contrary that he shall continue in possession.

(2.) Both the trial Court and the lower appellateCourt have rejected that plea stating that any agreement reached out-side the Court cannot be subject matter to be enquired into in final decree proceedings.

(3.) I am in complete agreement with theview expressed by the lower appellate Court and the trial Court. If the defendant has acquired any right, he must independently enforce the agreement by a procedure known to law. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the decision of this Court in the case of Shambu Mada Hegde v Rama Ishwar Hegde, 1969(2) Mysore Law Journal 212. That case has been followed by me in a Division Bench ruling. The question there was totally different. It related to the jurisdiction of the Court passing the partition decree to enter a compromise when the matter had been referred for division by metes and bounds to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 54 of the C.P.C. That had nothing to do with the enforcement of an agreement reached outside the Court to be part of the enquiry to be conducted in final decree proceedings. The decision has no application.