ANJAYYA Vs. VITHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the 2nd defendant, who succeeded in securing the dismissal of the suit for possession of Survey No. 17 situate in Khan jamalpur, Taluk, Bidar, appeal from the judgment and decree, dated 15th December, 1952 of the District Judge, Bidar, who reversing the decision of the Trial Court,, decreed the suit.

(2.) The subject-matter of the suit belonged to one Kadoji, who as the pattadar was admittedly in occupation and enjoyment thereof till I343-F. On 21st Aban 1343-F. the patwari of Khanjamalpur through his letter No. 18 made a submission to the Tahsildar of Bidar informing him that Kadoji had fallen in arrears for the second cist of the year, and that he himself had not heard of him for the last two months. The Tahsildar attempted to lease the land on a temporary basis but failed in his attempt. Thereafter, purporting to act under rule 9 of the Settlement Rules he made a proclamation on 2 1st Dai 1343-F., for public sale of the disputed plot. This proclamation was followed by another proclamation of Bahman I345-F., fixing the date of sale as 2nd Isfandar 1345-F. On that date Kadoji filed an application before the Tahsildar protesting against the proposed sale on the ground that he was not an absentee pattadar or a defaulter. The Tahsildar ordered notice to issue and posted the application for inquiry to 14th Ardibihisht 1345-F. Despite being served Kadoji failed to appear and the Tahsildar passed orders for issue of a proclamation of sale. Ultimately, the sale was held and the disputed plot was knocked down in the name of Narasgunda, the deceased 2nd defendant, as the highest bidder in 1345-F., and he was recorded in jamabandi file of 1346-F., as the purchaser-pattadar.

(3.) Before Kadoji could take any steps to get the sale set aside, he died leaving two minor sons, Vithal and Dattu. Nine years later Narasgunda brought O.S. No. 165 of 1355-F., on the file of the Munsif of Bidar for perpetual injunction against Vithal and Dattu praying that the defendants might be restrained from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment of the land in dispute. Vithal and Dattu denying the validity of the sale on which the suit was based confessed judgment and reserved their right to bring a separate suit for appropriate relief which might be open to them. The learned Munsif by his judgment, dated 10th Aban I355-F., decreed the suit on the basis of the consent expressed by the defendants.