AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.R. Kumaraswamy
This Regular Second Appeal is filed u/s 100 of CPC against the judgement and decree dated 14.2.2006 passed in R.A. No. 41/04 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court - III, Hassan, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgement and decree dated 12.8.1997 passed in O.S. No. 599/92 on the file of the Prl. Munsiff and (sic)MFC-II), Hassan. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:
One acre of land granted to Anusuyamma was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner. One acre of land was acquired by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation in auction sale. He further submits that the property in question does not exists. He further submits that in view of the non existence of the property this court may dispose of the appeal.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that if the property is in existence, plaintiffs are at liberty to enjoy the fruits of the decree and to execute the impugned decree. He further submits that the appeal may be dismissed in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
The ordinary rule is that the rights of parties must be determined as on the date of action not on the basis of right which accrued to them after institution of the suit. By reason of subsequent change of circumstances the relief claimed become inappropriate or that it is necessary to have the decision of the Court on the altered circumstances in order to shorten litigation or to do complete justice between the parties the Court may depart from the general rule and mould the relief on the basis of the altered circumstances.
In the instant case, the learned counsel for appellant submits that suit schedule property is not in existence in view of subsequent development i.e., cancellation of the grant of 1 acre of land by the Assistant Commissioner and also acquisition of property of 1 acre by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation.
As stated earlier, the rights of the parties are to be determined as on the date of cause of action. This Court has taken notice of the subsequent events after the suit is decreed. As stated earlier suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the property in question is not existence and on this ground appellant will not have right to plead to set aside the impugned judgments of the Courts below. The question that whether the property is in existence or not in existence can be determined when it comes before the Court in the execution proceedings. Learned counsel for appellant has clearly submits that due to non-existence of the property in question, this Court may dispose of the appeal. Due to change of circumstance, the relief claimed by the appellant is inapposite. In that view of the matter, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following:
ORDER
This appeal is dismissed.
Since the main matter is disposed of, the IA 2/06 for production of additional documents and IA 3/06 for stay does not survive for consideration.