PATEL MUDDEGOWDA Vs. GANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gangamma and her minor daughter Chikkamma, who are respondents before this Court, filed a suit for maintenance against Patel Mudde Gowda and five others who are the appellants before this Court, and obtained a decree. The appellants filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Tumkur but that appeal was not contested on its merits but a compromise was entered into between the parties. By that compromise some lands were given to respondents 1 and 2 for their maintenance. The further term of the compromise was that the appellants should construct a house, ten 'ankanams' in extent on vacant site, item No. 13 of the schedule and deliver over the same to the respondents before April, 1955. Failing to so construct the house within the stipulated time, the appellants will be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- to the respondents towards the cost thereof. This latter is an important term of the compromise, for the dispute between the parties centres round the fulfilment of that term. It may be noted, however, that there is no dispute regarding the former term of the compromise. The suit was decreed in terms of the said compromise.

(2.) The appellants filed an application under Section 47 and Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the trial Court to the effect that in pursuance of the terms of the compromise, they had constructed a house within the stipulated time and given delivery of possession thereof to the respondents. But with an ulterior motive, the respondents have not taken possession of the house and left it vacant. On the other hand, they are attempting to execute the decree. Under the circumstances, they prayed that full satisfaction of the decree be entered. The respondents in their objections stated that the house was not constructed within the stipulated time, nor was it delivered to them by the appellants. In any case, they pleaded that the structure was unfit for occupation as there were cracks in the roof and walls of the said structure and there was no ventilation.

(3.) The Munsiff, viz., the trial court upheld the contentions of the appellants and entered full satisfaction of the decree. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents filed an appeal in the Court of the Civil Judge, Tumkur. The learned Judge agreed with the Munsiff to this extent, that the appellants had completed the structure within the stipulated time and the same was put up in accordance with the terms of the compromise. He, however, allowed the appeal and reversed the order of the trial Court on the ground that the application of the appellants under Order 21, Rule 2, C. P. C. was barred by time. Aggrieved by that judgment the appellants have preferred this second appeal to this Court.