A subsequent purchaser cannot claim better title against earlier proceedings confirming a sale in favor of another party, as established by Order XXI Rule 92(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.UMA, J.

Defendant No.1 in OS No.141 of 1993 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamarajanagara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short), is impugning the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2008 passed in RA No.40 of 2007 (old RA No.191 of 2002) on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track, Chamarajanagara (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for short), whereunder, the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2001 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff was set aside and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff in OS No.141 of 1993 was decreed as prayed for.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff filed the suit OS No.141 of 1993 against defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking declaration of his title and for permanent injunction in respect of the property described in the schedule i.e., the land bearing Sy.No.275/1 measuring 35 guntas situated at Yediyur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajanagara Taluk with the boundaries mentioned therein and to restrain defendant No.1 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

4. It is the contention of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that he is the owner in possession of the schedule property, which was purchased by him under the registered sale deed dated 09.10.1991 from defendant No.2. The schedule property was originally belonging to one Mahantadevaru-the uncle of defendant No.2. In the partition, the schedule property was allotted to the share of Mahantadevaru and he was in possession of the land. He sold the same in favour of one Basamma under the registered sale deed dated 08.01.1944. Basamma being the purchaser was in possession of the property and she gifted the same in favour of her daughter Chikkalingamma under the unregistered gift deed dated 29.07.1964. The said Chikkalingamma who acquired title and possession of the property sold the same in favour of defendant No.2 under the registered sale deed dated 12.12.1997. Since then, defendant No.2 was in possession and enjoyment of the property. Defendant No.2 sold the same in favour of the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 09.10.1991 for a valuable consideration and since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same and spent huge amount for its improvement.

5. It is contended by the plaintiff that since his predecessor in title was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, nobody else was having any right over the same. Defendant No.1 filed the suit OS No.811 of 1961 on the file of the learned Munsiff, Nanjangud claiming maintenance against her husband Veerabhadradevaru. The suit came to be decreed. However, without getting the decree transferred to the Trial Court, defendant No.1 brought the schedule property for sale and she herself purchased the same in Execution Case No.33 of 1988. It is contended that said Veerabhadradevaru was not having any right, title or interest over the schedule property. Therefore, it is contended that the proceedings in OS No.811 of 1961 and in Execution Case No.33 of 1988 before the Trial Court are not binding on the plaintiff or his predecessor in title. The cause of action for the suit stated to have arisen during April 1993 when the plaintiff got the RTC for the year 1992-93 and found the entry referring to the name of defendant No.1. Hence, filed the su