RAMASWAMY AND ORS. Vs. JAFARSAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review petition is filed by the plaintiff/respondent in RSA 1227/2006 seeking review of the judgment passed by this Court in RSA 1227/2006 dated 08.09.2014.

(2.) THIS case has a chequered history. O.S. 56/88 was filed by the plaintiff/1st respondent seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property i.e., originally R.S. No. 53 now re -numbered as CTS 8A/1A/1A/1A/1A, Ward No. III, Mariyan Timmasagar, Hubli. The said Sy. No. 53 was originally in the ownership of two brothers by name Mohammadsab - who is the deceased father of 1st defendant and Janisab - who is the deceased father of defendant No. 2. They were said to be tenants in common. Father of 2nd defendant filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the properties in R.S. No. 53, 50, 67 and other house properties and said to have obtained a decree. So far as partition of the said property was concerned, the matter was transferred to the Deputy Commissioner. Meanwhile, the father of the 2nd defendant expired leaving behind 2nd defendant as his legal heir. It was contended by the 1st defendant in the appeal proceedings that the property was in continuous and actual possession with Mohammadsab and after his death 2nd defendant was in possession of the said property. Though these properties were described as agricultural lands, they were treated as non -agricultural lands and several plots were developed. It is the case of the petitioner herein that 1st defendant has leased out the suit properties by way of permanent lease under a registered deed dated 22.09.1959 and 28.10.1959 in favour of the petitioner and is said to have been inducted in actual possession. It is assured that after coming into force of the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961, the entire land was regranted to its lawful holder viz., 1st defendant on 05 -08 -1968. In the meantime, 2nd defendant filed O.S. No. 29/63 against the 1st defendant for possession of his half share in Sy. No. 53 and other lands. A compromise decree was entered into between defendants 1 and 2. Execution No. 234/69 was instituted by the 2nd defendant against 1st defendant in pursuance of the compromise decree, sought delivery of possession of land in Sy. No. 53. Petitioner herein being the plaintiff in O.S. 265/71 filed suit for injunction against the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit property which was decreed, against which R.A. 183/74 was filed by the 3rd defendant and the same came to be allowed. Challenging the same, RSA 596/77 was filed by the plaintiff before this Court. In the said RSA proceedings, O.S. 265/71 was withdrawn on 29.8.1987 with liberty to file a fresh suit. In the meantime, 3rd defendant pursuant to the money decree obtained against the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 450/1975, got attached the suit property in Ex. No. 314/1976 and purchased the same in Court auction. Accordingly, O.S. No. 56/88 was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. The said suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, R.A. 101/2002 was preferred. The said appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The said judgment and decree passed in R.A. 101/2002 was challenged in RSA 1227/2006 by the 3rd defendant before this Court and the same came to be allowed after hearing the parties by judgment dated 8.9.2014.

(3.) PLAINTIFF /petitioner is now before this Court seeking review of this judgment on the ground that 2nd defendant had no right over the suit property and the 3rd defendant in view of money decree passed in O.S. 450/75 obtained against the 2nd defendant, wrongly got attached the suit property in Execution No. 314/76 and purchased the same in Court auction. The said purchase made by the 3rd defendant in Court auction is wholly illegal and invalid.