Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: moolgeni in Monappa Kottari S/O Late Korega ... vs David Pinto S/O C.M. Pinto, Christian ... on 24 August, 2006Matching Fragments
Original Moolgar Smt. Anthu Hengsu, leased the property permanently to Anthojuvan Rodriges on 13.6.1889 and consequently, said Rodriges became the Moolgenidar. The said Moolgeni rights were subsequently transferred from one person to another person on five occasions. Ultimately they were transferred in favour of Kasturba Medical Collage Trust on 30.9.1962 as per Ex.P-20. Said Kasturba Medical College Trust transferred the Moolgeni rights again in favour of Mariel Pinto (defendant No. 2) on 16.8.1998, as could be seen from Ex.D-16. Thus from that date onwards, defendant No. 2 is the Moolgenidar.
4. AS aforesaid, both the courts decreed the suit holding that there is no merger of interest of the Moolgenidar and sub-moolgenidar with the interest of Moolgar. Consequently, both the courts below have held that the sale deed Ex,D-1 executed in favour of the defendant No. 1 by the original Moolgar N. Subban Shiva Rao will not affect either Moolgeni right of defendant No. 2 (D-2) or sub Moolgeni right of plaintiff over the property in question.
5. Learned Advocates' appearing on behalf of both the sides have taken ma through the entire material on record and the law on the point.
7. On the other hand, Sri A. Keshava Bhat and Sri N.K. Ramesh, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents, placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raghuram Rao and Ors. v. KRTC P. Kathtas and Ors. reported in 2002 Sar (CIVIL) 225 and opposed the contention of the appellant by submitting that the sale in favour of the defendant No. 1 is subject to the Moolgeni rights and smb-moolgeni right of defendant No. 2 and plaintiff respectively. According to them, the Moolgeni rights and sub-moolgeni rights which are vested with the defendant No. 2 and plaintiff respectively will not vanish or merge with moolgar's rights by virtue of the sale deed executed by Moolgar in favour of defendant No. 1.
8. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal:
(a) Whether the 1st defendant has become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property in view of the purchase of Moolgar's right?
(b) Whether the sale dead. Ex.D-1 in favour of 1st defendant dated 27.3.1986 executed by Moolgar namely Sri Subban Shivarao is subject to the Moolgeni and Sub-Moolgeni rights of defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff respectively?".