MALLANNA ALIAS APPAIAH Vs. MUNINANJAMMA ALIAS NANJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 6-1-1995 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge. Bangalore District in RA 64/94 setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the II Principal Munsiff, Bangalore dt. 19-7-1994 in OS. No. 542/1989 urging on various grounds.

(2.) THE appellant filed Original Suit in No. 130/89 on 4-3-1989 for eviction of the Respondent from the suit schedule property. The respondent in turn filed the OS. No. 542/1989 on 9-8-1989 for specific performance of the Sale Agreement. In respect of these two original suits, trial was held separately, both the original suits were clubbed together, common judgment was passed and decrees were drawn separately. The respondent preferred one appeal against the common Judgment and Decree in respect of the Decree passed in OS. No. 130/1989. The contention of the appellant's counsel that, the Court below has erroneously allowed the appeal and interfered with the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court passed in the original suit, even though the Judgment and Decree passed in OS. No. 542/1989 is not challenged in the Regular Appeal.

(3.) THIS Court while admitting the Appeal on 7-2-1997 framed the following substantial question of law for consideration :-