GANESH RAMCHANDRA KULKARNI Vs. LAXMIBAI VENKATESH NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal we are concerned only with Survey No 4 and the eastern half of Survey No. 96 of Kamatnur. These were Vatan lands held by Gopal. He died in 1894. In execution of a money decree obtained against Gopal during his life-time, the property was put up for sale by the Court and purchased by one Narayan in 1896. He got possession in September 1897. He was a Vatandar of the same Vatan In these execution proceedings the judgment-debtor was represented by his widow. It does not appear whether she raised any objection to the sale in the execution proceedings: but she filed Suit No. 682 of 1897 for a declaration that the sale was illegal. This suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by Section 244 of the Civil P. C. of 1882 and that she should have raised the objection in the execution proceedings. The sale certificate does not in terms state whose right, title and interest were put up for sale but it shows that there was a sale of the lands in question. The widow died in November 1901. The present suit is filed by some of the reversioners as the heirs of Gopal. The claim is resisted in respect of these particular lands by the defendants who claim under Narayan on the ground that the sale is binding upon the reversioners and that they have acquired a title by adverse possession for over twelve years from the time they got possession in 1897.

(2.) The trial Court held that the cause of action accrued to the reversioners on the death of the widow in 1901 and that as the claim was made within twelve years from that time the suit was not time-barred. It further held that as the land was Vatan property the sale was inoperative as it was not liable to be Bold after the death of the last male holder. Accordingly the plaintiffs claim in respect of the lands was decreed.

(3.) The lower appellate Court has dismissed the plaintiffs suit on the ground that the question whether the sale was invalid was res judicata in virtue of the decision in Suit No. 687 of 1897 filed by Kashibai.