BHAIRAVASINGH MALOJIRAO GHCRPODE Vs. SHANKAR RAO BINDU RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench by Bhimiah J. The revision petition is presented against the order dated 6-8-1973 passed on I.A.-VI by the Civil Judge, Bagalkot, in OS. 38/70. The petitioners are defendants 1 and 3 in the suit. I.A.-VI is an application filed by defendant 1 on 6-7-71 under S.87B read with Ss.85 and 86 CPC, requesting the Court to dismiss the plaintiff's suit in limine as being not maintainable. The application was dismissed by the Civil Judge.

(2.) The first respondent brought the suit on 5-12-70 under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for possession of the suit immoveable properties. Defendant 1 was the former Ruler of Mudhol State. Defendant 2 (Resoondent 2) is his mother, Defendant 3 is the general power of attorney-holder Erom defendants 1 and 2. Respondents 3 to 12 (defendants 4 to 13) are the relatives of defendants 1 and 2 in whose favour certain transfers in respect of the suit properties have been effected. The case of the plaintiff is that all the suit properties which consist of lands in Shirol village, Mudhol taluk, belonged to defendants 1 and 2, defendants 1 and 2 agreed during the month of January 1960 to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff for Rs. six lakhs, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. one lakh as advance and paid another sum of Rs. one lakh during 1969, he was put in possession of the properties, there was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 for payment of the balance of the consideration in five equal annual instalments and that in spite of the same plaintiff has been dispossessed of the suit properties by defendants 1 to 3 and their men on 18-8-70. It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendants 1 and 2 have effected transfers of some of the suit properties in favour of defendants 4 to 13, but that those transfers are all bogus and are intended to save the properties from the claim of the plaintiff.

(3.) In the affidavit accompanying I.A.-VI the third defendant has sworn to the fact that defendant I was a Ruler of the former Mudhol State before its merger with the Indian Union, that defendant 1 thereafter agreed to merge the State with the Indian Union, that the Central Govt has, by Notification dt.1-4-51, specified Mudhol State as a former Indian State for the purpose of S. 87B CPC, that defendant 1 is recognised by the President of the Indian Union as the Ruler of the former State of Mudhol, that the plaintiff has not obtained the consent of the Central Govt to file the suit under S.87B CPC and that therefore the suit is not maintainable.