BASALINGAPPA Vs. BABBAN BASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree-holder to whom the payment of the decree amount has been made and who has in under unequivocal terms accepted the discharge of the decree, has been responsible for this litigation. The grievance of the appellant before this Court is that he is asked to pay twice over, which it is urged on his behalf, is neither in accordance with law, facts of the case or equities.

(2.) The facts leading up to this appeal are briefly as follows: One Shivasettappa whom I form as the decree-holder in this appeal obtained a decree against the appellant Baslingappa whom, for the purpose of easy reference, I will term as decree-holder in the Court of the Munsiff at Gangavathi in Suit No 94/1 of 1953-54. The decree is dated 14,7,1954. The judgment-debtor appellant filed an appeal before the district-Judge, Raichur challenging the decree. This appeal filed by the judgment-debtor was not disposed of on merits. Certain circumstances intervened which , according to the judgment-debtor, were in his favour and therefore, he was satisfied with the order passed by the learned District Judge, Raichur, an application was filed on 15.10.1954 by the said decree-holder wherein in unequivocal terms he states as follows:

(3.) What has transpired in between these two dates is that the decree-holder has assigned his decree against the judgment-debtor (appellant) in favour of one Kabban Basappa On 8.9.1954. Kabban Basappa is this contesting respondent before this Court. This matter, perhaps, did not come to the notice of the District Judge immediately. Otherwise, the learned District Judge would not have certified the compromise as he has done by his endorsement dated 15.10.1954 to which I have referred On 16.10.1954 as per the order sheet of the District Court I find, that not only the advocates of the parties viz, the decree-holder as well as the judgment-debtor but also the transferee of the decree were present. As per the terms of the compromise application it was prayed that the applied petition should be disposed of. At this stage, the advocate for the transferee of the decree whom for purposes of easy reference of in the first instance and be, therefore, prayed for time for argument. The case was, however, the learned District judge, dismissed the appeal that by the judgment-debtor (appellant). No doubt he makes a record as follows: