KADARKARI Vs. ONKARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 30-6-1977 passed by the Civil Judge at Davanagere in O. S. No. 52/1975 on his file. The appeal is by the 2nd defendant. In the course of this judgment, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court.

(2.) The 2nd defendant was the transferee of a portion of the suit schedule property which he was occupying as a tenant. The plaintiff's suit was for specific performance of an statement to call the suit schedule property, including the portions in the occupation of the 2nd defendant, by the 1st defendant who was the owner of the whole of the suit schedule property. Because the 2nd defendant purchased two rooms in his occupation, he was impleaded.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit. it was held, it would suffice for us to say, the 2nd defendant was not a bona fide purchaser without notice. On the other hand, it was held on evidence that the 2nd defendant had knowledge of the transaction of the agreement to sell between the plaintiff and the 1st defendent and therefore he could not be considered to be a bona fide purchaser without notice. In that circumstance, the suit came to be decreed. While decreeing the suit, the trial Court has directed that successors in interest of the 1st defendent who died during the pendency of the suit, must execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, on the plaintiff depositing a sum of Rs. 8730-86 in the Court within three months from the date of the order. However, by another order, he directed that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of two items, namely, tenements bearing Door No. 690/2 and 690/4, the portion of the premises which were in the occupation of the 2nd defendant even prior to the suit agreement to sell. Aggrieved by the latter of the reliefs granted, the 2nd defendant has preferred the present appeal.