ONKAREPPA WASAPPA KOLOOR Vs. RACHAPPA GURUSHANTAPPA JAGALALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the plaintiff's suit is bad for multifariousness is the question which arises in this revision petition which is presented by the plaintiff.

(2.) The property which is the subject-matter of the suit in the court below was a vacant land on which a house now exists. After that house was constructed, on March 11, 1957 the entire property was sold to the plaintiff, according to him, by defendants 1 to 3. Defendant 4, according to the sale deed, was a tenant of the property and the sale deed contained a recital that possession should be delivered to the plaintiff by defendant 4 after the expiry of a period of one year. Defendant 4 was, however, not a party to the transaction, and after the expiry of a year when the plaintiff found it difficult to obtain possession from defendant 4, he brought a suit for recovery of possession and in the plaint he stated that the suit was brought for the enforcement of the covenant in the sale deed that possession should be delivered to him after the expiry of a year from the date of the sale deed. Defendant 4 who admits that he is a tenant of the house repudiated the pale transaction and characterised the sale in favour of the plaintiff as "illegal and void". Defendants 1 to 3 pleaded that the sale was a "hollow" sale.

(3.) Issues 1 and 4 are the material issues. The first issue is whether defendants 1 to 3 prove that the sale is hollow, and the fourth issue is whether defendant 4 proves that the sale is illegal and void. After these issues were framed, defendant. 4 asked the Court to direct the plaintiff to confine his suit to only some of the reliefs prayed for by him, and be asked this direction to be made on the ground that the suit is bad for multifariousness.