BHOJE MAHADEV PARAB Vs. GANGABAI VITHAL NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, which is preferred by the plaintiff in the original suit, arises in the following circumstances :- In 1902 the 1st defendant Gangabai kom Vithal obtained V decree for her maintenance against Ramchandra, Vinayak and others. The plaintiff is a purchaser, from some of these judgment-debtors, of two of the plots mentioned in the maintenance suit, but in this appeal we are concerned only with one of these two plots, namely, Survey No. 108 Falni Nos. 1t 2 and 4 and Plot Nos. 1, 2 and 3. This purchase was made by the plaintiff in 1906. Prior to then no attachment or other proceeding had been taken out by the first defendant under her decree of 1902. In 1907, however, she applied for execution of her decree for maintenance. In 1910 this particular plot along with others was attached and sold, and was purchased by the third defendant.

(2.) The suit was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the sale to him in 1906 was binding on the 1st and other defendants and in order that the Court should set aside the auction-sale of 1910.

(3.) In the trial Court the plaintiff succeeded. He was, however, defeated in the lower appellate Court, the learned Judge being of opinion that the doctrine of Us pendens was fatal to his suit.