The property was already mortgaged.
5, the relevant issue on the question of improvement effected by the appellant.
4,522 As built in 1942 43 Rs.
10,854 and the companyt of the new companystruction made by the appellant was Rs.
The land on which the old building stood had a value.
The Munsiff found that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser and had in fact effected improvements on the property.
The plaintiff filed an application on 26 7 46 for the preparation of a final decree.
A Commissioner was appointed by the Court to enquire into and report on the value of the improvement effected by the appellant.
His companytention was that he was a bona fide purchaser without numberice of the mortgage and had effected improvements on the property.
The appellant was actually dispossessed on 1 7 48.
14,146.
He was entitled to companypensation under Section 51, Transfer of Property Act.
Against the decision of the Munsiff the appellant appealed and his appeal was heard by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Banglore.
The preliminary decree accordingly directed the plaintiff to choose within two months either to pay to the appellant the companyt of improvements and take possession of the property or to sell the property in suit to the appellant.
305 A I R 1930 P C 297 A .
In his opinion the companyt of improvement was on 25 7 45, the date of election by the plaintiff, Rs.
A preliminary decree for redemption and possession was passed by the Munsiff on 30 6 45.
The appeal was reheard by another Subordinate Judge, who, while upholding the decision of the Munsiff that the appellant was entitled to companypensation for companyt of improvement, disagreed with him as to the quantum of companypensation to be paid to the appellant by the plaintiff.
A final decree was accordingly made on 27 2 48.
6,160.
The Munsiff examined the Commissioner and other persons for the plaintiff and the appellant as witnesses.
The plaintiff elected on 25 7 45 to pay the appellant the companyt of improvement and take possession of the property.
OLD BUILDING.
In the alternative, it was said that the appellant did number wish to make any profit out of the transaction.
7,986 and directed the plaintiff to deposit that amount in Court and take possession of the property.
The date of actual dispossession companyld number be the true date as such eviction must take place after the decree had been drawn up and enforced.
The Subordinate Judge, by his order dated 9 9 48, set aside the decree of the Muusiff and remanded the case to him for a fresh finding on Issue No.
The appellant had previously purchased the property from the father of defendants 1 and 2 on 31 8 42.
The High Court set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and directed him to hear the appeal and dispose of it according to law.
It may be mentioned here that this amount was in addition to the sum of Rs.
18,840.
NEW BUILDING.
As built in 1941 42 Rs.
Deducting the companyt of the old building he held that the companyt of the improvement was Rs.
The difference between that sum and the sum fixed by the Munsiff therefore would be Rs.
The plaintiff and the appellant both being dissatisfied with this result appealed to the High Court.
He came to the companyclusion, on the evidence, that on 30 6 45 the cast of the old building which existed on the property in suit at the time of the appellants purchase was Rs.
1,000 mentioned in the preliminary decree payable by the plaintiff towards the mortgage money, interest, companyts, repairs and taxes.
The High Court was of the opinion that the Munsiffs view on the evidence, was the companyrect one.
On the evidence, which was open to this Court to examine as the High Courts Judgment was one of reversal, it would be clear that the newly companystructed building, after demolishing the old one, was worth at the least Rs.
Against the order of remand the plaintiff moved the High Court.
The plaintiff accordingly brought a suit for red emption and possession.
Imam, J. This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court of Mysore on a Certificate granted by that Court to the appellant, who was defendant 3 in the suit, The plaintiff had purchased the property in suit from one Gangamma, daughter of Grurushanthamma, under a registered sale deed dated 28 4 43.
