Seethamma and Unggappa Raj filed O.S. No.2/1965 on 3.1.1965 for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in O.S. No.592/1963, as well as order of the executing Court dated 16.11.1964 being fraudulent, companylusive and number binding on the family.
1000/ from Mahabala Raj hereinafter referred to as Ihe creditor on executing pronote for purposes of filing a suit for recovery of possession of land from Ramanna Rai and other members of the kavaru.
The application of Seetliamma was thus rejected on 16.11.1964.
The High Court dismissed the said appeals.
On 1.12.60, Yajaman filed a suit being O.S. No.
Yajaman did number companytest the suit and the Court decreed the suit ex parte on 27.11.1962 In execution proceeding brought by the creditor the suit property was attached.
However, On appeal the first Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.
It is against the said judgment the appellant has preferred this appeal.
The creditor as well as the auction purchaser preferred second appeals before the High Court.
On 25.10.1962 the creditor filed O.S. No.592/1962 against Yajaman representing kavaru for recovery of the principal amount of Rs.1000/ and interest against pronote Ex.
The appellant herein purchased the property in the said companyrt auction.
The said application was opposed by other defendants, including the plaintiff who filed a companynter affidavit Ex.
A 49 .
Under such circumstances, Seethamma filed an application that she may be transposed as the plaintiff in the suit.
Seethamma was also made one of the defendants in the suit.
It is relevant to mention that during pendency of the suit, the property was sold at companyrt auction.
When the suit came up for final hearing, plaintiff Yajaman did number prosecute the suit.
A 39 .
The trial companyrt disi,nissed the suit brought by Seethamrna.
This suit, along with three other suits were tried together by the trial companyrt.
Consequently, the application for transposition filed by Seethamma was dismissed.
At this stage, Seethamma filed R.E.P.No.104/1963 under Order XXI Rule 53 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the property was number liable to be attached as the same we as obtained by companylusion and exercising fraud.
459/1960 for recovery of possession of the said property from Ramanna Rai and others.
