VASAVAMBA Vs. PARASURAM SAIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the plaintiff. He instituted, on the 19th of January 1961, OS. No.4 of 1961 before the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Mysore for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties; for recovery of mesne profits of Rs.4,500; and also claimed other reliefs. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to the ownership cf one C. Raghavendra Rao. Plaintiff i.e. the wife of one V. S. Rajaram Set.ty filed a suit for recovery of certain monies due to her from C.Raghavendra Rao. In that suit, the case of the plaintiff was that the properties in question were attached before judgment on the 4th of February 1954. Thereafter, there was a compromise arrived at between the parties and a decree for Rs. 6,727 with costs and interest was passed. A period of six months was also granted to C. Raghavendra Rao for payment, but as he failed to pay the same, proceedings were taken out in Exn.. No.25 of 1956 and the lands in question were purchased by the plaintiff through her husband on 21st January 1956. Ext.P4 is the sale certificate. The case of the plaintiff is that the paintiff got possession of the lands in pursuance of the sale, but defendant wrongfully dispossessed her and inspite of notice defendant having refused to deliver possession, the plaintiff was compelled to institute the suit.

(2.) Defendant denied the allegations made by the plaintiff snd contended that there was no attachment at all, and it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove: (1) that the procedure prescribed for attachment before judgment under Or 38, R.7 CPC was Mowed: (2) that the Court has ordered the issue of all the prescribed notices and warrants in connection with the alleged attachment; (3) that the prescribed notices and warrants have been issued by the Court; and (4) that there has been publication and affixture and service of the prescribed notices and warrants in the prescribed manner. It was contended on the contrary, that he has purchased the lands in question from C. Raghavendra Rao on the 9th of August 1955 and after having obtained a decree against his vendor has entered into possession of the properties through Court. It was, therefore, contended that the defendant was in rightful possession of the land and that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for possession or for mesne profits.

(3.) The learned trial Judge framed several issues and on consideration of the same, held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the factum and the validity of attachment before judgment, and therefore, she failed to prove her title to the suit lands. It further held that the sale in favour of the defendant was valid and was not affected by the alleged attachment. It also held that the defendant had improved the properties and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The suit was consequently dismissed.