1 and 2 herein original plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2000 in Regular Appeal No.
1 and 2 were in possession.
1 and 2 herein that the above named persons agreed to sell their share to the plaintiffs Respondent Nos.
4 herein.
123 of 1986.
The land in the ratio of 1/2, 1/6, 1/6 and 1/6 was given to Ashabai w o Manohar Kulkarni, Yashwant Kulkarni Husband of Respondent number 3 herein , Dattaraya Kulkarni and Laxmibai Ganesh Kulkarni respectively in the eastern side.
In pursuance to the said partition, the joint owners gave a joint application to the Survey Department for demarcation of boundary line between the eastern and western land showing their respective names to their respective parts.
2,000/ was paid in advance.
On 21.03.1986, Respondent No.
3 herein wife of Yashwant Kulkarni , the owner of 1/6 th share of land in Survey No.
568 of 2000 before the High Court.
It is the case of the plaintiffs Respondent Nos.
Division , Hukeri and the order dated 21.07.1992 in ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2018.04.16 151008 IST Reason Original Suit No.
Later on, the above suit land was divided into two parts as Eastern and Western measuring 3 acres 4 guntas each.
4 herein with the possession way back in 1986 through a registered sale deed for valuable companysideration and the appellant purchased the same in 1999 for valuable companysideration through a registered sale deed and he was put in possession of the suit land also.
Brief facts The suit property is an agricultural land situated at Khavanewadi village in Hukeri Taluka bearing Survey No.
3 and 4 herein before the Court of the Addl.
In pursuance of the same, it is alleged that the possession of the entire land got transferred to Respondent Nos.
29 of 1997 passed by the Court of Civil Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Judge Sr.
The decree passes by the Munsiff in the year 1987 regarding possession in an independent suit filed in the year 1984 is indicative of the fact that the plaintiffs respondent Nos.
Though the exact division was number ascertained, it was decided to execute the sale deed only after the division.
29 of 1997 before the Court of Civil Judge, Sr.
It was further companytended by learned companynsel for the appellant that the High Court failed to see that the owner of 1/6th share of the suit property sold the same to Respondent No.
Sudha, wife of Yashwant Kulkarni got 1/6 share of her husband in the eastern side and got her name entered in the record of rights for Survey No.
129 of 1984 for permanent injunction by the original plaintiffs while upholding that the original plaintiffs were in possession of the entire extent of the land.
Hukeri.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.06.2005, the appellant herein has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
The appellant purchased the suit property as he is having his landed property adjacent to the suit property.
During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant herein, purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed for valuable companysideration.
Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs Respondent Nos.
22,000/ and Rs.
Learned Addl.
1 and 2 herein filed an Original Suit being No.
3 herein, who was the original owner of the suit property, was number the party to the said case.
The companyowners except Sudha, having 1/6 th share of the eastern side executed a sale deed in favour of plaintiffs on 13.02.1984 and they were put in actual possession of the land.
By that time, Yashwant Kulkarni and Dattaraya Kulkarni expired.
It was further companytended that the appellant was served with the numberice of impleadment only on 02.06.2005 and when the appellant was making arrangements to enter and defend the matter, the appeal came to be decided vide judgment dated 29.06.2005.
Heard Mr. Shankar Divate, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned companynsel for the respondents.
1 and 2 were put into the possession of entire land.
Hence, the judgment in the said Suit ought number to be companysidered for deciding the issue of possession of share of Respondent No 3.
Further, it was companytended that the High companyrt has seriously erred in relying upon the judgment dated 24.09.1987 passed by learned Additional Munsiff in Original Suit No.
Point s for companysideration Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was right in granting decree for specific performance to the original plaintiffs Respondent Nos.
77, sold her share to Respondent No.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.02.2000, the plaintiffs preferred a Regular Second Appeal being No.
Munsiff, Hukeri.
Hence, directing the execution of the sale deed in favour of the original plaintiffs after the lapse of a companysiderable long period is unjustified and will cause grave injustice to the appellant herein.
Munsiff, vide judgment and order dated 21.07.1992, dismissed the suit.
Aggrieved by the decision dated 21.07.1992, the plaintiffs filed a Regular Appeal being No.
Learned Civil Judge, vide judgment and order dated 25.02.2000, partly allowed the appeal while refusing to grant specific performance of the companytract.
123 of 1986 for specific performance against Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 herein ?
At this juncture, it was companytended that the Respondent No.
It is also alleged by the appellant herein that he was put in possession of the suit property.
The measurement was finally carried out and approved on 30.12.1983.
1 and 2 herein .
After settlement, the total price of 3 acres 4 guntas was fixed at Rs.
77, measuring 6 acres 8 guntas wherein several persons were owners of their defined shares and were in cultivation till 28.05.1981.
Hence, the principles of natural justice of the appellant stand violated.
568 of 2000 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by Respondent Nos.
K. Agrawal, J. The above appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.06.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal No.
