BODU LACHMIAH Vs. VENKAT LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by Buddu Lachmiah the appellant before me against Bankatlal and others for declaration of title, possession, for release from attachment and for setting aside the judgment of 27th Ardibehest 1358-F. This suit of the appellant has been dismissed by both the Courts.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are : One Narasimha Reddy mortgaged the suit property on 5th Shehrewar 1354-F, for a sum of Rs. 2,000 in favour of one Gulbarga Nagiah and later on transferred the right of redemption in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 4,000. Defendant-I Bankatlal had a money decree against Venkat Reddy. In execution of the decree, he attached the suit property on 29th Shehrewar 1354-F. Narasimha Reddy appeared as an objector and filed a claim petition which was dismissed on 3rd Farwardi 1355-F. The suit property was put to auction. The appellant appeared as an objector and his objection petition was dismissed on 27th Ardibehest 1358-F. Hence this suit. The claim of the plaintiff appellant was resisted on the ground that Narsimha Reddy was not the owner, that he was not entitled to make the transfer in favour of Gulbarga Nagiah or the plaintiff-appellant and that the appellant was bound by the result of the claim petition having purchased the property pendente lite. Both the Courts on the evidence led by the parties have dismissed the suit having held that the appellant having purchased the property during the pendency of the claim petition was bound by the result thereof.

(3.) Shri Mohd. Abdul Waheed Ovesi, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued first that both the Courts have erred in coming to the conclusion that the present suit was governed by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. He contends that the order on the claim petition dated 3rd Farwardi 1355-F could not be treated to be an order on merits after proper investigation. The second argument advanced was that when Narsimha Reddy had transferred the property in his favour on 13th Azur 1356-F., he was not competent to make any admission or enter into any compromise so as to bind the appellant. It was next urged that the admission of Narasimha Reddy amounted to fraud and the appellant was therefore entitled to file a suit. It was lastly urged that section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply to proceedings under Order 21, rule 63 or 100, Civil Procedure Code.