ZAHIRABI Vs. GORIBI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal. It was the case of the plaintiff that she was the absolute owner of the suit property, at No. 27, Muniswamappa Road, Munireddypalya, Bangalore, measuring 82' x 18'. She is said to have purchased the same from one Khajabee, under a sale deed, dated 15.11.1961. The suit property consists of two rows of tenements, which were said to be in the occupation of several persons. The entire property was enclosed with a compound wall. And the property bore a single door number. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession continuously from the date of purchase. The vendor, Khajabee, was said to be in occupation of a unit. The portion under her occupation was leased back to her by the plaintiff. In the year 1965 the plaintiff is said to have filed a civil suit in O.S. 509 of 1965, claiming arrears of rent from Khajabee. While contesting the suit, Khajabee denied the sale in favour of the plaintiff. However, the suit was decreed. It then transpires, that the husband of Khajabee had filed a suit, in O.S. 1160 of 1967, against the plaintiff seeking re-conveyance of the suit property, on the footing that the sale in favour of the plaintiff was nominal. That suit was said to have been dismissed. An appeal was filed against such dismissal, in RA 171 of 1969. The said appeal is said to have been allowed, subject to the appellants therein depositing a sum of Rs. 2500/- on or before 9.9.1970 and to secure a deed of re-conveyance.

(2.) The plaintiff is said to have challenged the judgment passed in the above appeal by way of a second appeal before this court in, RSA 898 of 1970. During the pendency of the appeal both, the vendor and her husband had died- leaving behind no legal heirs. Consequently, the appeal abated. The condition as to the deposit of the amount of Rs. 2500/- imposed by the first appellate court, was not complied with.

(3.) The first defendant, claiming to be a care taker of the suit property subsequent to the sale deed aforesaid, is said to have filed a suit, in O.S. 474 of 1978, seeking injunctory reliefs against the plaintiff. The same is said to have been dismissed on 22.2.1979. Thereafter, the second defendant had instituted a suit, in O.S. 797 of 1979, which was renumbered as O.S. 6163 of 1980, seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the plaintiff. The same was said to have been dismissed on 1.4.1989. No appeals had been filed against the dismissal of the. above suits.