(1.) The appellant is the purchaser of the suit house from respondent No. 2 under a sale-deed dated 26-4-1954 for a sum of Rs. 600/- (O.S.). Respondent No. 2 is the widow of the cousin brother of respondent No. 1 who is the plaintiff that instituted O.S. 64/1 of 1956 in the Court of the Munsiff at Chincholi on 31-8-1956 for a declaration that the alienation was not binding upon him as the alienated property was the joint family property. Respondent No. 2 first conceded for a decree being passed in favour of the plaintiff but subsequently resiled. The trial Court did not permit her to resile from the stand that she had taken in the first instance by filing a written statement consenting to a decree being passed in favour of the plaintiff. The purchaser contended that the family of the plaintiff and of his vendor was not a joint Hindu family, that his vendor's husband Kishan Rao had become divided during his lifetime and that as his vendor had been in possession of all the properties of her husband in her own right, she put him in possession of the suit house after the execution of the sale-deed.
(2.) The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the family had been divided and that the plaintiff could not claim the declaration sought for in the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal (C.A. 176/4 of 1959-60) to the Court of the District Judge, Gulbarga. The appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge who came to the conclusion that the question of status of the plaintiff and defendant 1's husband was not an open question as it had been concluded by the judgment of the Court of the Munsiff in O.S. No. 97/14 of 1953-54. He took the view that the decree passed by the High Court in 1333 Fasli on a compromised between the parties and one Munnalal stating that the family had become divided was no longer operative in view of the subsequent decree passed by the Court at Kondangal. He further held that there was no legal necessity for defendant No. 1 (Mathura Bai) to alienate the property. It was urged on behalf of the defendants that in view of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Mathura Bai became the absolute owner as even according to the recitals of the plaint she was in possession of the suit property. The learned Judge repelled this contention on the ground that Mathura Bai had alienated the property before the Act came into operation and that the purchaser cannot claim the benefit of S. 14 of the Act. He accordingly reversed the decree of the trial Court and granted the plaintiff a declaration to the effect that the sale deed executed by Mathura Bai was not binding upon him.
(3.) In this Court Mr. Murlidhar Rao, the learned Advocate for the appellant, has challenged the judgment of the District Judge on all the three grounds. Firstly, he contended that the provisions of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) made Mathura Bai the absolute owner of the suit property and that it was not competent for the plaintiff to claim the declaration sought for by him. He further contended that the alienation was justified by legal necessity and that the finding of the appellate Judge on the question of res judicata was erroneous since he ought to have given effect to the judgment of the highest Court within the State.