- (1.) These three appeals arise out of a suit in which the plaintiff, who happens to be the appellant in all these appeals, asks for the following reliefs: (a) a declaration that he is the owner of the property in suit measuring about 27000 square yards of land in Bangalore city under a Will dated July 9, 1959 executed by one Sripada Rao; (b) a declaration that the compromise deed dated August 26, 1959 executed by and between Sripada Rao, defendants 1 to 4 and the father of defendants 5 and 6 was null and void and that the real as well as the beneficial interest in the property in suit continued to vest in Sripada Rao; (c) recovery of possession of the property from the defendants and mesne profits, or Alternatively, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the property is liable to attached and sold for the realisation of a sum of Rs.19,850/- decreed in his favour by the Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore in O. S. No. 74 of 1960 upon a promissory note stated to have been executed by Sripada Rao; the suit was brought by the present appellant against the widow and three sons of Sripada Rao.
(2.) The trial court held that the Will set up by the plaintiff was genuine, but the testator was not the owner of the property bequeathed as he had sold it to the father of defendants 5 and 6; however, the entire consideration not having been paid the testator had beneficial interest in the property by way of unpaid vendor's lien to which right the plaintiff had succeeded by virtue of the Will. The trial court also held that the compromise deed, (Ex.D-6) was void and that the plaintiff was entitled to the beneficial interest which Sripada had in the property. The prayers for declaration of title to the disputed property and recovery of possession were refused. The alternative relief asked for was also not granted. From the decision of the trial court the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore against the part of the decree refusing some of the reliefs he had asked for. Appeals were also filed respectively by defendant No.1, and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 against the decree in favour of the plaintiff. The High Court disagreeing with the finding of the trial court held that the Will was not genuine and on this view dismissed the suit. The High Court does not appear to have recorded any finding on the other reliefs allowed by the trial court. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the two appeals filed by the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.
(3.) XX XX XX;