ANUSUYA BAI Vs. B NRAMAIAH RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In O.S. No. 238 of 1948-49, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, the petitioners in this revision petition were some of the defendants. The respondent was the plaintiff. That was a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was the owner of a house and for possession thereof to him. His suit was dismissed by the Sub-ordinate Judge, but, in the appeal preferred by him to the District Judge, he obtained the decree which he wanted. In Second Appeal No. 497 of 1953, this Court set aside the decree made by the District Judge, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) But, during the interregnum between the date of the decree made by the District Judge and that of this Court, the plaintiff executed his decree and secured possession of the house. After the second appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed by this Court the Petitioners made an application for restitution, under the provisions of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent contended that restitution could be ordered only on condition that the petitioners paid the value of the improvements, he claimed to have effected to the house after he secured possession thereof. He claimed that a sum of Rs. 9000/- should be paid by the petitioners before possession of the liouse could be delivered back to them.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioners, it was urged that the respondent could not claim the value of any improvements, even if he had made any, and that under the provisions of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was not open to the respondent to ask the Subordinate Judge to enquire into the question whether the respondent had made any improvements and if so, at what expense, since, according to the petitioners, no one who has made improvements during the pendency of a litigation would be entitled to their value.