KENCHEGOWDA Vs. PCHANNAIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are by the plaintiff who filed a suit for declaration of his title to, and for possession of, the schedule property with mesne profits. The Munsiff decreed the suit while the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeals filed separately by defendant 3 and defendants 1 and 2.

(2.) The dispute leading to the litigation has been fully set out in the judgments of the two courts below and for the present purpose a brief summary of the salient features will be stated.

(3.) The plaintiff purchased the undivided 1/3 share of the properties belonging to the joint family of the 1st defendant and his two brothers for a sum of Rs. 500/- under a registered sale deed dated 8-7-1839 and he is said to have paid the consideration therefor under a receipt dated 12-7-1939. The first defendant could not, and in fact did not, put the plaintiff in possession of the property sold for the obvious reason that the share was undivided. Under a later general partition dated 25-4-1946 the first defendant got his share of the properties and subsequently sold the same in different lots to defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff filed the. present suit for possession of the schedule properties obtained by the first defendant at the said family partition on the equitable doctrine of substitution.