MARUTI GURAPPA Vs. KRISHNA BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises an interesting question of law namely whether the person who has obtained property on the basis of a contract of sale can maintaina suit against an auction purchaser of the same property. The material facts briefly stated are as follows;

(2.) THE suit property (i. e survey Nos. 162 and 177) (half share) originally belonged to defendant No. 3 and two others. On 12-4-1949 defendant No. 3 and two others entered into an agreement for selling the said property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,600/- Part of the sale price i. e. Rs. 585/- was paid on the date of agrteement and the plaintiff was put inpossession of the property. In the month of May, 1949, defendant No. 2 obtained a decree against defendant No. 3 In execution of the said decree, the land in suit was sold inauction and purchased by Deft. No. 1, Deft. No. 1 started proceedings for recovering possession of the property on the basis of the sale certificate. The plaintiff obstructed the delivery of possession. proceedings were started by the auction purchaser for removing the obtruction under Rule 99 of order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After summary enquiry, the Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to continue in possession. The Court therefore directed him to remove his obstruction. On 2-4-52, the plaintiff filed a suit under Rule 103 of ordeer 21 of the C. P. C. contending that he was a transferee under a contract of sale; that he was in possession of the property by virtue of that contract of sale; and that therefore he was entitled to protect his possession under Section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) DEFT. No. 3 did not appear and the suit proceeded ex parte against her. Defts. 1 and 2 contended that the plaintiff cannot maintain any action for the enforement of his claim under Section 53a of the T. P. Act. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff went in appeal to the District Court. The District Court allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff's claim. It is against that judgment the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have now come up in appeal.