Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 458: [dr. k. bhakthavatsala, j] offences under sections 341 and 352 i.p.c., limitation for taking cognisance incident taking place on 2.8.2005 cognizance taken on 4.6.2007 punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year held, as per section 458 of cr.p.c., the court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under section 458 cr.p.c., - proceedings were quashed. - this suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate court, as well as by the high court in second.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. the plaintiff is the appellant. the suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under section 55(2) of the transfer of property act. the first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for rs. 200a. after the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed o.s. no. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. the first defendant purported to have sold the same as his.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Appeal allowed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Appeal allowed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Appeal allowed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Appeal allowed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Appeal allowed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Appeal allowed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Appeal allowed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Appeal allowed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Appeal allowed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 .

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Appeal allowed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Appeal allowed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 .

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Appeal allowed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Appeal allowed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. Appeal allowed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371674',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
			'appellant' => 'Basappa',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appeal allowed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'basappa-vs-kodliah',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371674',
		(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Basappa Vs Kodliah - Citation 371674 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371674',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51778/transfer-of-property-act-1882-complete-act">Transfer of Property Act, 1882</a> - Sections 55 and 55(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954',
		'appellant' => 'Basappa',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Basappa Vs. Kodliah',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 458: [Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Offences under Sections 341 and 352 I.P.C.,  Limitation for taking cognisance  Incident taking place on 2.8.2005  Cognizance taken on 4.6.2007  punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Held, As per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year  Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 458 Cr.P.C., - Proceedings were quashed.  -  This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. 4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-04-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. Hegde, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. </p><p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. </p><p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. </p><p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: </p><p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. </p><p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and </p><p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. </p><p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. </p><p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. </p><p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . </p><p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. </p><p>8. Appeal allowed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kodliah',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371674',
	(int) 1 => 'basappa-vs-kodliah'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371674/basappa-vs-kodliah'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages against the defendants for breach of the implied warranty of title under Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant sold some lands, to the husband of the second defendant as per sale deed dated 16-12-1926 for Rs. 200A. After the death of the original vendee, the second defendant his widow, sold those and other lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/- as per the sale deed dated 11-4-1945. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>Subsequent to this, the son of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 18 of 1945-46 challenging the alienation contained in the sale deed dated 16-12-1926 and claiming his half share of the property on the ground that the property in question is a joint family property. The first defendant purported to have sold the same as his individual property. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>This suit was decreed and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court, as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. In pursuance of this decree the half share of the plaintiff therein was delivered to him in January 1949. The vendee had to pay mesne profits and costs. Hence the present suit for damages. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 425-8-0. But the suit against the first defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal was al o dismissed. The first appellate Court has set out three grounds in support of its judgment. They are: ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not been produced. Hence it is not known as to whether there is any warranty of title. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p> 2. The plaintiff as well as the original vendee are likely to have known the defect in the title, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> 3. The suit is brought nearly 25 years after the transaction. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. The Courts below have wholly misconceived the scope of the suit and consequently came to erroneous conclusions. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The factum of the sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of the second defendant's husband is established. This is found for the plaintiff by both the Courts below. The warranty of title pleaded is a statutory one. No contract to the contrary is pleaded. The covenant in question runs with the land. Hence the non-production of the sale deed is immaterial, as there is the statutory warranty of good title. See Ramayya v. Kotayya : AIR1930Mad748 and Avadesh Kumar v. Zakaul Hushain : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Even if the vendee knew the defect in the title of the vendor still he can avail himself of the statutory warranty. Vide : AIR1944All243 and Mt. Saraswatibai v. Madhukar AIR 1950 Nag 229. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In such a suit the cause of action arises on the date of dispossession and not on the date of the sale deed. See Mohamad Raza Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmed : AIR1930All858 and : AIR1944All243 . ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The decree of the trial Court is modified by decreeing the suit against both the defendants for Rs. 425-8-0. As regards costs, the first defendant (Respondent in this appeal) is liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff in all the Courts. The second defendant is also liable to pay the costs of the plaintiff incurred in the trial Court. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. Appeal allowed. <p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Property
Court	Karnataka High Court
Decided On	Apr-01-1958
Case Number	Second Appeal No. 177 of 1954
Judge	K.S. Hegde, J.
Reported in	AIR1959Kant46; AIR1959Mys46; ILR1958KAR237; (1958)36MysLJ491
Acts	Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 55 and 55(2)
Appellant	Basappa
Respondent	Kodliah
Advocates:	K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.

Basappa Vs. Kodliah - Court Judgment