JADE BHASKARA NAIK Vs. MARIAPPALA BASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before me is the purchaser of the property in suit in an execution sale. He claims a declaration that he is the hawkdar of the schedule land as he is in possession and that he is entitled to recover Rs. 676/- being the crop compensation for the year 1946-47 and Rs. 264-1-0 being the reconditioning charges, making together a sum of Rs. 940/1/-. The decree in execution of which he purchased the property in question was a decree obtained in O. S. No. 269 of 1930-40 against defendants 1 and 2 in this suit by one Yalegara Durgappa. The decree-holder, after he had obtained the said decree, assigned it to the present appellant. In execution of the said decree the property in suit was attached on 14th December 1939. It was thereafter sold, and was purchased by the present appellant. The said sale was confirmed on 31st May 1946. The plaintiff's case is that thereafter he obtained delivery of possession of the said property on 31st October 1947 through Court and has since been in possession thereof.

(2.) It appears that for the period between 1942 to 1947 the Military was in possession of the said property and the crop-compensation which was payable for such possession was Rs. 676/- per year. Some time in 1947, the said property was derequisitioned and Rs. 264-1-0 was awarded as reconditioning charges to the owner of the land. It appears that on 19th May 1943 defendants 1 and 2, in whose name the khata of the suit land stood, had sold the suit property to one Bongale Kalappa. At this stage it should be mentioned that the father of defendants 1 and 2, one Gowdara Rudrappa, and the father of defendants 3 and 4 in 'this suit, Mariappala Rudrappa, were two brothers. The property in suit stood in the khata in the name of Gowdara Rudrappa and thereafter in the name of defendant 1 Mariyappa. On 28th July 1943, the said property was re-conveyed by Bongal Kalappa in favour of defendants 1 and 2, and on the same day the said defendants sold the same to defendants 3 and 4. It appears that the crop-compensation in respect of the suit land for the year 1942-43 was paid to defendant 1 by the military authorities, and the crop-compensation for the year 1943-44 was paid to defendants 1 and 2. After their said purchase, the defendants 3 and 4 applied to the military authorities for payment of the compensation and reconditioning charges to them, and the said authorities paid Rs. 940-1-0, being the total amount of crop-compensation for the year 1946-47 and the reconditioning charges. It is the payment of this amount which gave rise to the present suit. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to the said payment as he had already purchased the property in execution sale and was in possession. He filed the present suit for the relief which I have already mentioned.

(3.) I should have mentioned that defendants 3 and 4 claimed the property on their own right. In other words, their case was that about 30 years ago there was a partition between Mariyappala Rudrappa and Gowdars Rudrappa, and as a result of that partition the suit land came to be owned by Mariyappala Rudrappa. After the death of Mariyappala Rudrappa it devolved on the said defendants 3 and 4, who are his sons. The case of defendants 3 and 4 also was that Mariyappala Rudrappa and after his death defendants 3 and 4 were in possession of the suit land. As for the sale deed executed on 28th July. 1943 in favour of the said defendants by defendants 1 and 2, the case of defendants 3 and 4 was that it was an unnecessary document and was obtained by way of additional safety and under the following circumstances. On being apprised that defendants 1 and 2 had deceitfully sold away to Bongale Kalappa the suit land, they caused a notice to be issued to Kalappa and thereafter a panchayat was convened at which it was settled that Kalappa should reconvey the suit land to defendants 1 and 2 who, in turn, should reconvey it to defendants 3 and 4.