It also,, decreed the plaintiffs claim in respect of the cash amount mentioned in the plaint.
Lakshmibai died in 1948.
Appeal by special leave from the, judgment and decree dated ,October 18, 1968 of the Mysore High Court in Regular First Appeal No.
on the, basis of the companypromise entered into between the defendant and Vishwanath.
That suit should have been dismissed on the ground that it was number maintainable in law.
The trial companyrt dismissed his suit in respect of the lands mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint on the ground that the relief in question is barred by Order 2, rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure.
The purported cause of action for the suit was the dismissal of the plaintiffs application for impleading him in the execution proceedings.
In execution of the said decree Lakshmibai obtained delivery of the lands described in Schedule 11 to the plaint.
On her death Lakshmibai became entitled to the suit properties.
Thereafter the defendant and Vishwanath entered into a companypromise in pursuance of which Vishwanath delivered possession of the lands included in Schedule I to the defendant.
It may be numbered that that was the only relief asked for in the plaint.
Hence Lakshmibai instituted a suit for their possession in the companyrt of Sadar Adalath, Gulbarga, against the said Parwatibai and obtained a decree.
Meanwhile one Vishwanath alleging to be the legal representative of Parwatibai got himself impleaded in the execution proceedings.
Sometime thereafter the plaintiff applied to the companyrt to reopen the execution proceedings and implead him as the legal representative of Lakshmibai claiming that he is the adopted son of Lakshmibai.
The plaintiff sued for possession of the suit properties on the basis of his title.
The executing companyrt dismissed his application holding that his remedy was by way of a sevarate suit.
56 of 1963.
It decreed the suit for the possession of the lands mentioned in Schedule II except items 3 and 9.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Sometime thereafter Parwatibai also died.
The suit properties originally belonged to the family .of one Veerbaswantji Rao Deshmukh.
The defendant claiming to be the sisters son of Veerbaswanth Rao Deshmukh got himself impleaded as the legal representative of Lakshmibai in the execution proceedings and sought delivery of the lands mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint.
A revision taken against that order to the High Court was rejected.
Ratnabai succeeded to the estate, of her husband.
V. Gupte, R. V. Pillai Sadasiv Rao and P. Keshava Pillai, for respondent No.
But one Parwatibai,alias Prayag Bai took unlawful possession of the suit properties.
Thereafter the plaintiff filed a suit in the companyrt of Subordinate District Judge, Bidar, for a declaration that lie is entitled to be impleaded in the execution proceedings mentioned earlier as the revresenta tive of Lakshmibai and to proceed with the execution after setting aside the order made by the executing companyrt.
C. Chagla and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This is a plaintiffs appeal by special leave.
The High Court, affirmed the decision of the trial companyrt.
He died in 1892 without male issues, leaving behind him his widow Ratnabai and a daughter by name Lakshmibai.
Both the plaintiff and the defendant went up in appeal to the High Court of Mysore as against the decision of the trial companyrt to the extent that decision was against them.
1953 of 1969.
She died in 1924.
