BASALINGAVA REVANSHIDDAPPA UMBARJI Vs. CHINNAVA KARIBASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises the question whether in a suit by the vendee it is competent to the Court to pass a decree for possession conditional on the vendee paying the unpaid purchase money.

(2.) The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the house in suit alleging that it belonged to her father Shivlingappa who sold it to her on December 15, 1920, for Rs. 1,000 and delivered possession, and that during her absence she was dispossessed by the defendants, her sisters. Defendant No. 3 admitted the plaintiff's claim. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 alleged that the transaction was hollow and without consideration and denied that the possession was handed over to the plaintiff.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge held that the transfer was not colourable but was without consideration, and passed a decree ordering possession of the entire house on condition that if within three months the plaintiff did not pay to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Rs. 600 the suit shall be dismissed, and that the plaintiff should recover a half share in the house by partition. The ground on which the decree was based was that the vendor Shivlingappa was the father of the plaintiff and the defendants, and defendant No. 3 having admitted the plaintiff's claim, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the contesting defendants, were entitled to the half of. the property and the plaintiff was entitled to the other half. On appeal the decree was confirmed.