SIDDAMALLAPPA KADAPPA BURGE Vs. DUNDAPPA HUVAPPA GHASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point raised in this second appeal was whether proper issues have been framed both by the trial court and the appellate court with reference to the burden of proof. It is true that there was an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 20-11-1970 and the property has been sold to the first defendant on 30-11-1970. The case of the plaintiff was that the father c defendants 2 to 5, was a tenant in respect of the suit property. he purchased the property from the original owner and sold it to the plaintiff. But, despite the fact that the plaintiff sent a notice by certificate of posting to the intending purchaser defendant 1, defendants 2 to 5, apart from an objection made by him before the sub-registrar, the sale has taken place and defendant 1 has purchased the property. His grievance that the lower court by framing the issue in the following fashion, the burden is wrongly cast on him.

(2.) IN this view, the finding of the first appellate court has to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted back to the first appellate court with a direction to frame proper issues putting the burden on defendant 1, the purchaser of the property and decide the matter afresh. The parties are permitted to adduce further or additional evidence if they so choose before the first appellate court.

(3.) HENCE, this second appeal is allowed.