SULEMAN APPASAHEB MULLA Vs. GOPAL MURARI PADIYAR DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal instituted by Defendant-2 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-11-1972, passed by the I Add. Civil Judge, Bel- gaum, in R.A. No. 96 of 1972, on his file, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29-3-1972, passed by the principal Munsiff, Belgaum, in O.S No. 332 of 1969 on his, file.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case for the purposes of this appeal are these: One Manohar Mahadev Khannukar was the owner of C.T.S. no.2040 1A-1A of Kadolkar Galli in Belgaum. He had let out the said premises to D.W. 1 Manohar Raghunath Urankar. Later, on 20-10-1962, Khanukar executed a mortgage deed in favour of D.W. 2 Urankar for Rs. 3,0001-. Thereafter, Khannukar sold his right of redemption to the plaintiffs in the present suit under Ext. P-l on 11-12-1964, thereafter, on 15-12-1964 Urankar transferred his rights derived under Ext. P-2 to one Noor Mohamad Miyya Hazi under Ext. D-2 and delivered possession to him. On 7-10-1965, the said Hazi transferred his rights derived under Ext. D-1 to the defendants under Exhibit D-2. Subsequently, the plaitatiffs filed an application in Misc. A. 8311967, on the file of the Munsiff, Belgaum, for redemption and possession of the property. The defendants contested the suit on several grounds and as per Ext. P-3, the Petition carne to be dismissed on 20-7-1968. Thereafter, Defendant-1 Hazaratbhai relinquished his rights in the partnership in favoulr of Defendant-2 and thus, Defendant-2 carne to be in possession of the property.

(3.) The Plaintiffs filed, the suit for redemption on 8-9-1969, claiming possession and future mesne profits. Defendant-2 Mulla contested the suit- He took several contentions, but, the relevant! contention for the purpose" of deciding this appeal is that according to the defendant, the plaintiffs were not entitled for actual possession of the suit property; Urankar, the: original mortgagee, was a tenant of the suit property, after the redemation of the mortgage, it was agreed by the original mortgagor-owner that the tenancy of Urankar should continue. Hence, he submitted that the plaintiffs could not claim actual possession.