NINGAMMA WIFE OF LINGE GOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7 AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. HUTCKAMMA WIFE OF HANUMANTHAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY L.RS. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7 AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are before this Court questioning the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court on 27.8.1993. The said appeal is accompanied by various applications including one for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal to an extent of 6164 days, which would be 17 years. It is also accompanied by various other applications including to condone the delay in filing of the applications for setting aside the abatement and to bring the legal representatives of deceased appellants as well as respondents on record.

(2.) THE plaintiff files a suit for redemption of mortgage. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit. As against which, the original plaintiff was before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court pursuant to a judgment dated 27.8.93 allowed the appeal in part. Thus decreed the suit in the following terms: In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The plaintiff is hereby declared that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and he has right to redeem the mortgage transactions at Ex.D1. If the plaintiff has deposited the mortgage amount in the Court then the defendant No. 1 to 7 can entitle to get that amount by filing a proper application. If he has not deposited the amount, he is directed to deposit the amount within three months. The prayer of the plaintiff seeking the recovery of possession by redemption or partition and separate possession by metes and bounds is hereby dismissed.

(3.) APPARENTLY , the original plaintiff did not question that part of the judgment denying partition or possession. The defendant in the suit filed an appeal in RSA No. 1278/1995. This Court declined to entertain the appeal on the ground that the possession has already been delivered. Thereafter, since possession was not delivered the plaintiff sued out execution for recovery of possession. A contention was taken by the defendants indicating that the judgment and decree does not indicate that possession is to be delivered. Thus execution proceedings were terminated. In this piquant situation the legal representatives of original plaintiff are before this Court questioning the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Judge after lapse of 17 years.