DODDAMANE GURUPADAPPA Vs. HUGULAVALLI RANGANNA GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the paintiffs who had filed O. S. No. 7 of 1947-48 in the Court of the District Judge at Shimoga, claiming possession of certain lands. Plaintiff 1 is the father and plaintiffs 2 to 6 are his sons. The lands in suit were the properties belonging to the joint family of all the plaintiffs. Plaintiff 1 had mortgaged them in favour of defendant 2. The latter obtained a decree in respect of that mortgage in O. S. 20/37-38 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Shimoga. He took out execution proceedings in Exn. 223/42-43 and again in Exn. 162/44-45 On 2-8-45 the properties were sold before Court when defendant 1 purchased them for a sum of Rs. 8,100/-. On 6-9-1945 the judgment-debtor filed a petition under Order XXI, Rule 90, C. P. C. on the ground of material irregularities in the publication and conduct of the sale. The petition was dismissed and the sale confirmed on 22-11-45. Thereafter the present suit was filed on 29-11-47.

(2.) According to the plaintiffs, the Court sale held on 2-8-45 was without jurisdiction and null and void. It was thus contended that defendant 1 (auction-purchaser) had acquired no title to the suit properties. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed possession of the same. Defendants 3 and 4 are impleaded inasmuch as they are vendees from defendant 1. All the four defendants contested the suit on various grounds. The Court below could not accept any of the contentions for the plaintiffs. Thus the suit came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by that decree, all the plaintiffs except plaintiff 2, have filed this appeal. Plaintiff 2 has, however, been added as respondent 5.

(3.) Several contentions were raised in the lower Court by the plaintiffs against the validity of the sale. One of them was that the notice required under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code was not served on the plaintiffs and that, therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to hold the sale. Another was that the High Court had issued a temporary injunction in C. R. P. 414/44-45 restraining the holding of the sale in question and that, therefore, the sale held in contravention of that order is without jurisdiction and void. These contentions have not been pressed before us.