RUDRAPPA Vs. MAHADEO ISHWAR KAMBLE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1(b) to 1(d). Perused the records available on record.

(2.) Originally, a regular second appeal was filed before this Court in R.S.A. No. 222/2001 calling in question the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 312/1988 dated 29.07.1991 on the file of III Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, which was confirmed in the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2000 in R.A. No. 174/1991 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belgaum. While permitting to convert the said appeal to Civil Revision Petition on 03.02.2004 this Court observed that the appellant was not a party in the suit but affected by the decree, preferred first appeal, in which he filed applications for condonation of delay under Sec. 5 of Limitation Act and also application under Sec. 96 of Code of Civil Procedure for permission to prosecute the appeal. The first appellate Court dismissed both the applications and consequently dismissed the first appeal. This Court had further observed that there is mistake on the part of the first appellate Court in drawing the decree, when the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation, the decree should not have been drawn. Therefore, held that the second appeal is not maintainable on the orders passed on the interlocutory applications. The request of the appellant to convert the proceedings into civil revision petition was granted, I.A. Nos. 1 and 3 were allowed, legal representatives of the first respondent were permitted to come on record and consequently to amend the cause title. Consequent upon the said order of this Court, the said regular second appeal has been converted into this civil revision petition numbered as 464/2004.

(3.) The facts of the case as could be seen from the judgment of the trial Court in O.S. No. 312/1988 and also in R.A. No. 174/1991 are that, one Sri Mahadev Eshwar Kamble has filed a suit against one Smt. Padmavathi Mahadeo Juvekar and three others, for declaration that the plaintiff is the permanent lessee of the property bearing VPC No. 817/1 and 817/2 (old VPC Nos. 806) situated at Kalmeshwar road, Madhavapur Vadagaon -Belgaum measuring 60' x 40' and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. It is also an undisputed fact as admitted by the petitioner herein that he purchased the suit schedule property from Sri Atul Mahadeo Juvekar -defendant No. 3 in O.S. No. 312/1988 in the year 1989, precisely on 02.06.1989 during the pendency of the suit and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing No. 817/1 which was purchased under the said sale deed.