SESHAPPA Vs. VENKATARAMANA UPADYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Original Suit No. 77 of 1900 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Kundappur, Ganappayya Urala having been defeated on a claim petition arising out of an attachment made by the present plaintiff sued the present plaintiff to establish title to the property attached. The suit was dismissed on a finding that the conveyance on which he founded the title, a sale by the owner Sesha Navada was fraudulent and not intended to convey any interest. The decision was affirmed on appeal. The plaintiff now sues alleging that after the dismissal of the Ganappaya Urala's suit he brought the attached property to sale and purchased it himself and obtained possession, but was dispossessed by the 1 defendant who set up a mulgani-tenure under Ganappaya Urala. His suit is, therefore, for the recovery of the land, and it has been dismissed on the ground that the 1 defendant is entitled to possession as mulganidar. It is found inter alia that the 1 defendant has remained in possession ever since the mulgani- tenure was created, and that the plaintiff's allegation that he obtained actual possession is not true.

(2.) The first question for decision in the second appeal is whether the 1 defendant is bound by the decision in the suit of 1900, in which it was held that Ganappaya Urala had no title. If he is so bound, the plaintiffs title cannot be questioned in this suit, and apart from any question of dispossession the plaintiff will be entitled to succeed on his title.

(3.) The question is whether the 1 defendant is a person who claims under Ganappaya Urala within the meaning of Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code.