MEDAR NAGAMMA Vs. MEDAR SANNA SIVANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit in O.S. No. 157/1975 before the Principal Munsiff, Bellary, for declaration of title and permanent injunction against defendants-1 to 8 from taking delivery of the schedule building in pursuance of an order passed in HRC No. 69/1972 and from collecting rent from defendant No. 9. The suit was decreed on 5-10-1977. Defcndants-1 to 4,6 and 8 filed an appeal before the Civil Judge, Bellary, in R.A. No. 108/1977. That appeal was dismissed on 12-8-1980. Defcndants-1 to 4,6 and 8 have thereafter filed this second appeal.

(2.) The suit property and another item was owned by one Medar Gurubasappa and he mortgaged the suit properties to one Mundlur Gangappa on 9-9-1946. Later, Medar Gurubasappa sold one of the items mortgaged, i.e., the suit property, to the brother of the plaintiff on 24-4-1948. The plaintiff in turn purchased the suit property from his brother on 28-1-1957. Mundlur Gangappa transferred his mortgagee's right to one Sannabasavana Gowda and he filed a suit in O.S, No. 72/1958 for recovery of mortgage amount by sale of the mortgaged property. The plaintiff was not a party to this suit. Final decree was passed in O.S. No. 72/1958 on 14-11-1960. In the execution proceedings, the mortgaged properties, viz., the suit property and another item were sold in one lot and one Medar Huligappa, predecessor in title of defendants-1 to 8, purchased the same in the Court auction, The sale was confirmed on 26-6-1968 and in pursuance of which a sale certificate was issued. The suit building which was in the possession of the tenant-defendant 9 was ordered to be delivered and it is purported to have been delivered on 20-4-1972. Dcfendants-1 to 8, who are the legal representatives of the auction purchaser, filed an eviction petition against dcfendant-9 before the Rent Controller in HRC No. 69/1972. In the HRC proceedings, it was held that defendants-1 to 8 are the landlords of dcfendant-9 and an order of eviction of defendant-9 was passed in favour of defendants-1 to 8. At this stage, the present suit was filed.

(3.) The contention of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the property by virtue of the sale deed executed in favour of his brother by the original owner Gurubasappa and the subsequent sale in his favour executed by his brother on 28-1-1957, that dcfendants-1 to 8 have no title and that he being not a party to O.S. No. 72/1958, the sale effected in that proceedings will not bind him. It is his further contention that the proceedings before the Rent Controller in HRC No. 69/1972 cannot also bind him as he was not a party to that case and that dcfendant-9 cannot be evicted by defendanis-1 to 8 as he is his tenant.