NAGABHYRU BUCHAYYA Vs. DYTHA VENKATA NARAYANAPPA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal raises a very simple question of law as to the exact legal position of a purchaser from a co-owner of a property. The Subordinate Judge, Bapatla proceeded under a mistaken impression that the purchaser from a co-owner stands in the same position as a purchaser from a coparcener of joint family property.

(2.) For the purpose of understanding the legal position it is necessary to set out only a few relevant facts. Defendants 1 and 2 and Krishnavenamma were co-owners of the suit property. Krishnavenamma sold her 1/9th share to the second defendant, who in his turn sold it to the plaintiff. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-purchaser for partition and separate possession of his 1/9th share.

(3.) The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the sale transaction was not a genuine one and that there was ouster of the purchaser and his predecessors from the enjoyment of the suit property. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge held that the sale transaction was a valid and binding one. He further found that the purchaser from one of the co-owners is not in the position of a co-owner and that as he did not file the suit for partition and recovery of his 1/9th share for over 17 years, the suit was barred by time. He further held that mere enmity between co-owners for a long time and the non-payment of the share of the profits to the other co-owner would not amount to ouster. In the result he dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has consequently preferred the second appeal to this Court.