RAMCHANDRA MAHADEO KHONDRE Vs. PARASU DATTU KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point that arises in this appeal is whether the plaintiff 's suit filed in 1956 is barred under the provisions of Article 142 of the Limitation Act and also by reason of the conclusive nature of the order passed in execution proceedings under Order 21, Rule 103 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts of this appeal are the following:-

(2.) ONE Dadu Babaji Dari was the owner of the disputed property. Suit No. 533 of 1937 was filed by the original plaintiff against the said Dadu Babaji Dari to recover a debt owed by his. Ex. 38 is the decree dated July 19, 1939 for Rs. 337-4-6 in favour of the present plaintiff. In execution of this decree, the disputed property was sold by Court in Darkhast No. 176 of 1944 on November 4, 1944. The property was of course sold subject to a mortgage which Dadu Babaji Dari had executed in favour of the plaintiff. But we are not concerned with this mortgage in this proceeding.

(3.) THE sale was confirmed on December 7, 1944 and Ex, 45 is the sale certificate issued to the plaintiff dated December 13, 1944. During the pendency of this proceeding, namely, the suit and the execution proceedings filed by Nikam for the recovery of the amount of money, Dari sold the disputed property to defendant No. 1 on June 27, 1940. This sale was challenged by plaintiff Nikam and one other creditor of Dari under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act on the ground that this was intended to defeat the creditor's claims. The Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1949 decreed the suit on February 16, 1951.