PEELA YARAKAYYA Vs. KANUMURI VENKATA KRISHNAM-RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question is exactly covered by the decision in Bailur Krishna Rau v. Lakshmana Shaubhogue 4 M. 302 : 1 Ind, Dec. (N.S.) 1046. Here the defendant s claim to the property was disallowed, it being found by the Court which enquired into his petition of claim that he had no title to the property. He never sought to set aside the order. On the other hand he trespassed upon the property after possession had been given by the Court to the plaintiff. THEn the plaintiff brought a suit and the suit happened to have been filed within one year of the order passed on the claim petition of the defendant. THE defendant filed a written statement claiming, the property as his own. THE learned District Judge has held, following the case which we have cited, Bailur Krishna Rau v. Lakshmana Shanbhogue 4 M. 302 : 1 Ind, Dec. (N.S.) 1046. that the order on the claim of the defendant was conclusive as stated in Order XXI, Rule 63 : and the mere fact that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff to recover possession of the property from the defendant within one year of that order and the defendant put in a written statement also within that time, would make no difference. It is not suggested that the decision in Bailur Krishn Rau v. Lakshmana Shanbhogue 4 M. 302 : 1 Ind, Dec. (N.S.) 1046. has been dissented from in a later decision of this Court, though it is stated that there are some rulings of other High Courts to the contrary. We follow the ruling of this Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.