MOHAN RAO Vs. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 18.8.2016, passed on I.A.No.1, in R.A.No.93/2016, by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi , wherein the application filed by respondent No.1 herein under Order 22 Rule 10 read with section 151 of CPC, seeking leave to prefer regular appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2007 passed in O.S.No.327/2006, by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubbali , was allowed, has filed this appeal .

(2.) The brieffacts of the case are that, the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the land bearing Block No.232 measuring 8 acres 27 guntas out of 13 acres 7 guntas situated at Gamanagatti village of Hubballi taluk. The remaining portion measuring 4 acres 15 guntas of the said block was allotted to the tenants through Yallappa Tippanna Bisugal and others on his behalf, in view of Form No.7 filed by deceased Yallappa before the Land Tribunal, Hubballi . Thus the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights on 29.11.1975 and Form No.10 in the year 1998 was issued to the extent of 4 acres 15 guntas to Bisugal family. Defendants No.1 to 3 herein started disturbing over the land in possession of the plaintiff and as such he filed O.S.No.327/2006 before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, for declaration and injunction and temporary injunction was granted. Subsequently after the trial the said suit came to be decreed on 24.11.2007 by declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the land to the extent of 8 acres 27 guntas in the said block and permanent injunction was granted against the defendants in the said suit.

(3.) Respondent No.1 herein is said to have purchased the suit schedule property from respondents No.2 to 4 on 12.12.2006 i.e., during the pendency of the suit. Thus in Execution Case No.150/2011 filed by the plaintiff , respondent No.1 filed an application under Order 21 Rule 58 of Civil Procedure Code to come on record as objector and an application under Order 21 Rule 98 and 99 of Civil Procedure Code seeking to set aside the said judgment and decree. The said applications were allowed by the executing Court and the same was challenged by the plaintiff in W.P.No.105460/2014 and W.P.No.112517/2014. The said writ petitions came to be allowed holding that the purchaser of the suit property has no right to come on record in the execution case and he is bound by the decree. However, respondent No.1 was reserved liberty to agitate his rights in accordance with law. Thereafter respondent No.1 filed R.A.No.93/2016 challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2007 passed in O.S.No.327/2006 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi and he also sought leave of the Court to prosecute the said appeal by making an application under Order 22 Rule 10 read with section 151 of CPC, which was numbered as I.A.No.1.