LAWS(KAR)-1951-7-9

C D NARAYANA RAO Vs. KARIBASAPPA

Decided On July 05, 1951
C.D.NARAYANA RAO Appellant
V/S
KARIBASAPPA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's suit for declaration of his title to and possession of a house in Chamarajanagar has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Mysore, and he has come up in appeal. His case is that the site on which the house is built belonged to a Bank in Chamarajanagar now in liquidation and was sold to defendant 1 for Rs. 100 on 25-11-1934; that thereafter defendant 2 constructed the house on the site about 12 years before suit for and on behalf of defendant 1; that defendant 2 was leasing it out to several lessees and that defendant 5 is one of such lessees having entered into possession under a lease deed dated 22-11-1943. Defendant 1 is said to have sold the house to the plaintiff by a sale deed dated 15-3-1947 for Rs. 4,000 and he was compelled to bring this suit as defendant 5 set up title in the house in defendant 4 and is resisting his claim.

(2.) Defendants 1 and 2 have remained ex parte. Defendant 4 claims to have purchased the property from defendant 3 and leased it to defendant 5. Defendant 3 has pleaded that defendant 2 was his certificated guardian appointed by the District Court, Mysore, that after he attained majority defendant 2 did not furnish accounts to the Court or to himself and, as he was likely to be prosecuted there was a panchayati when the elder brother of defendant 1 and one Sahukar Basavannadevaru of Memballi interceded and at the panchayati it was decided that certain properties including the suit house which had been wrongfully acquired by defendants 1 and 2 out of the minor's estate or from its help should be delivered over to defendant 3 and that they should each retain some other items as a kind of division of the properties movable and immovable which had been acquired with the aid of defendant 3's estate during his minority.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge held that the case set up by the defendants is true and that the plaintiff had not also made out that he had paid consideration for his sale and was not a bona fide purchaser.