KAYYANA CHITTEMMA Vs. DOOSY GAVARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the purposes of the questions we have lo consider in this appeal the material facts are as follows : - In July 1890 the father of the plaintiffs mortgaged certain lands to certain parties whose interest is now vested in the defendants. In July 1895,the father executed and registered a sale deed by which he purported to sell the lands in question to the plaintiffs, the lands being in possession of the defendants under the mortgage of July 1890. In O.S. No. 407 of 1895, a suit against the father, the lands were attached. The plaintiffs preferred a claim to the attached property. This claim was rejected by an order, dated 22 February, 1896, made under Section 283 of the Civil P. C.. In July 1898, the father purported to sell the lands to the defendants. In October 1898, when the property was put up for sale in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 407 of 1895, the late first defendant paid off the amount due under the decree and the attachment was raised.

(2.) The present suit is a suit by the plaintiffs to redeem the lands in question.

(3.) The Court of first instance held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by Art. 11 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act, the plaintiffs not having brought a suit to establish their right to the property in dispute within one year from the date of the order made under Section 283 of the Civil P. C.. The lower appellate Court was of opinion that the claim was not barred inasmuch as there had been no "investigation" of the plaintiff's claim within the meaning of that word as used in the Code. We do not think the Judgment of the lower appellate Court can be supported upon the ground that there has been no "investigation" of the plaintiff's claim. The actual order was "The sale seems to be collusive; claim rejected." The District Judge observes, "The sale in question was one by a father to his daughters and the Munsif may have thought from a glance at the sale deed that it was probably collusive.