Therefore, thereafter the question was only with respect to the mortgage.
45 of 2002 came to be companyfirmed by the Court of the Civil Judge Sr.
2092 of 2008 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
Heard the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.
That the learned Court of Munsiff and Additional JMFC, Nanjangud by judgment and decree dated 3.8.1984 decreed the suit for specific performance filed by the aforesaid Kalingappa.
1 herein Kalingappa through his legal heirs preferred RSA No.
45 of 2002 in the Court of Principal Civil Judge Jr. Division , Nanjangud hereinafter referred to as the trial Court for redemption of the mortgage, possession and mesne profits against the original mortgagee as well as against Kalingappa.
45 of 2002.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court dated 15.7.2008 passed in RA No.
48 of 1983 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 26.4.1982.
45 of 2004.
However, Kalingappa paid Rs.3,000/ being the mortgage amount to one Sundarasetty the mortgagee assignee and Kalingappa was put in possession of the land in question.
The learned trial Court also directed the original Defendant No.
That the mortgage was done on 3.10.1980.
However, the Execution Petition filed by Kalingappa was dismissed as number pressed and, therefore, his rights under the judgment and decree passed in OS No.
2.2 The judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court dated 18.3.2004 in OS No.
1 Kalingappa to handover the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs Appellants herein on receiving the mortgage amount of Rs.3,000/ within one month from the date of its deposit by the plaintiffs.
2.1 That thereafter, in the year 2002, the Appellants herein original Plaintiffs filed suit bearing OS No.
64 of 1996 for execution of the judgment and decree dated 3.8.1984 passed by the learned Court of Munsiff and Additional JMFC.
That thereafter, the original Plaintiffs entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 26.4.1982 to sell the same in favour of the Respondents father Kalingappa for a sum of Rs.6,000/. That, Kalingappa filed a civil suit being OS No.
It appears that thereafter Kalingappa filed an Execution Petition No.
That, relying upon and companysidering Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 hereinafter referred to as the TP Act , the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has allowed the said appeal and quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, companyfirmed by the first Appellate Court and companysequently has dismissed the suit being OS No.
Learned Court of Munsiff and Additional JMFC directed the Appellants herein to execute the sale deed by receiving Rs.1,000/. Learned Court of Munsiff and Additional JMFC also directed the mortgagee to return the mortgage deed by receiving the mortgage amount and handover the land within one month.
45 of 2004, Respondent No.
Division , Nanjangud hereinafter referred to as the first Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 15.7.2008 passed in R.A. No.
That by judgment and order dated 18.3.2004, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit for redemption of the mortgage filed by the Appellants herein original Plaintiffs.
48 of 1983.
48 of 1983 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 26.4.1982 was extinguished.
45 of 2002 have preferred the present appeal.
The said Execution Petition was dismissed as number pressed by an order dated 28.6.1997.
It appears that, in between, Bangarasetty Mortgagee assigned the mortgage in favour of one Shri N.S. Sundarasetty and he was put in possession of the land.
R. SHAH, J. Leave granted.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 1.7.2011 passed by the High Court Karnataka in RSA No.
2092 of 2008, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Principal Civil Judge Jr. Division , Nanjangud hereinafter referred to as the trial Court , companyfirmed by the first Appellate Court and companysequently has dismissed the suit, the original Plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original plaintiffs in OS No.
