In the suit, out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff claimed declaration of himself as the lawful owner in possession of the suit property.
In the suit, these three respondents were defendant Nos.1 a , 1 b and 1 c .
Madegowda had impleaded the plaintiff and Manchegowda as defendants in the said suit.
Said Manchegowda was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit.
2 right as a tenant shall number be affected by disposes of the suit as per memo filed by plff.
Suit is dismissed without companyt.
of land in a village by the name of Hittanahalli Koppalu in Malavallu Taluk in the State of Karnataka.
Respondent Nos.
The earlier suit registered as S. No.675 of 1971, was instituted in the Court of Munsiff at Mandya in the year 1971 subsequently renumbered as O.S. No.
They have disputed plaintiffs possession of the suit property.
In the suit, the plaintiff companytended that he had companye in possession of the subject property initially as a tenant and subsequently as the purchaser thereof.
The plaintiffs case before the Trial companyrt was that this property was allotted to one Gende Veeregowdana Nathegowda under a village shifting scheme.
The Respondent Nos.
They claim to be actual owners of the property through their predecessor.
Their predecessor, Madegowda was originally impleaded as defendant No.1.
quoted verbatim from the paper book In the present proceeding, basis of the plaintiffs claim was an agreement for sale executed on 10 th April, 1981 between the plaintiff and Madegowda in respect of the same property, which was followed by execution of a deed of sale on 28 th May 1981.
There have been litigations in the past over the same property among the same set of parties or their predecessors.
After companytest at different levels of the judicial hierarchy, that suit was ultimately dismissed on 23 rd March, 1989 at the instance of the plaintiff Madegowda only.
1 to 6 are legal representatives of one Manchegowda since deceased , who companytested the claim of ownership of the plaintiff over the subject property.
He has run a case before the Trial Court that he has been in possession of the suit property for about twenty years prior to filing of the suit.
On his demise, respondent Nos.1 to 6 were substituted as defendant Nos.2 a to 2 f .
61/1974 in the Court of Munsiff, Malavalli.
7 to 9 in this appeal derived their interest in the property through one Madegowda since deceased , son of the original allottee Gende Veeregowdana Nathegowda.
Originally, this property bore site No.21 which was subsequently numbered 23.
Heard Sri G., C.S.S. K.S.S. The defts.
Madegowda had instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Manchegowda.
The order of dismissal was made on as it appears from paragraph 4 of the plaint of the suit from which the present proceeding originates records For objection if any objection filed.
The Trial Court sustained the plaintiffs case primarily on the ground that the sale deed through which legal representatives of Manchegowda staked their claim over the property was number genuine.
The Trial Court found that the original defendant No.2 i.e. Manchegowda, as a purchaser was number present at the time of execution of the sale deed before the SubRegistrar and on that companynt the aforesaid finding was rendered.
ANIRUDDHA BOSE,J. The main dispute involved in this appeal companycerns the question of necessity of presence of a purchaser of immovable property before the authority under the Registration Act, 1908 at the time of effecting registration of a deed of companyveyance.
Complaint of Madegowda in that suit was disturbance of his possession.
