Krishnappa @ Ramakrishnappa vs Sakethram Naidu

Subhash B. Adi

Though this matter is of 2003, by issuing warning list in advance, this matter is listed today in special Hot, however, learned Counsel for the appellant :s present, none appears for the respondent. This appeal is by the defendant against the judgment and decree in G.S.No.4753/1993 dated 18th September 2003 on the file of XIV Addi.City Civil Judge, Bangalore.

Parties would be referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.

Plaintiff sought for a decree of declaration that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and also for possession with mesne profits @ Rs.150/- per month till the possession is delivered.

Plaintiffs case was that, he purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 19.1.1979 from one S.Ramakrishnaiah, after the purchase, his name was entered in the relevant record and he put up two small residential structures in the said property. One portion of the property was leased to the defendant No.1 on a monthly rent of Rs.100/- and another portion was leased in favour of defendant No.2 on a monthly rent of Rs.60/-. However, plaintiff failed to pay the rent from August 1986. He became a defaulter, as such, plaintiff filed an eviction petition in H.R.C.No.10776/1987 u/s 21(1)(a) and (n) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. Since defendant Nos.1 and 2 denied the title of the plaintiff, the HRC was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff had not proved the title and jural relationship. In view of the dismissal of the said HRC, plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for declaration and possession.

Defendant No.1 alone contested the suit. Defendant No.2 did not choose to file any written statement.

Case of the defendant No.1 was that, the suit is not maintainable in law and on facts, plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 has been in possession of the suit property as he has taken the same from one Adam Sheriff, who had sold the same to him. Adam Sheriff had taken this property in exchange of suit schedule property with the defendant No.1 and Adam Sheriff had become owner of two sites under a gift deed. Further, he contended that, he has been in possession for more than 15 years and perfected. the title by adverse possession.

Trial court framed the following issues and additional issues:

Whether the plaintiff proves his title to the suit property?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit schedule property?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.150/- per month?

What order or decree?

Addl. Issue framed on 18.8.2003:

Whether defendant No.1 proves that he has perfected his title over the suit property by adverse possession?

Before the trial court, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and got Exs.P1 to Pi 0 marked in his evidence. Defendant No.1 got himself examined as DW-1 and did not produce any document.

Trial court held that the plaintiff has proved his title and has decreed the suit as prayed for and so far as mesne profit is concerned, ordered for holding an enquiry.

As against the said judgment and decree, first defendant is in appeal.

I heard Sri. C. Venkatesh learned counsel for the appellant

learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that, plaintiff though has produced the sale deed Ex.P I and claims that he has purchased the suit property from one Ramakrishnaiah, but there is no proof that Ramakrishnaiah was the owner of the suit schedulz., property. Even Ex.P7 - encumbrance certificate does not show the name of Ramakrishnaiah, as such, plaintiff has failed to prove his title to the suit schedule property. He also relied en Ex.P10, the copy of the dismissal order in H.R.C.No.10776/1987 and submitted that, the Rent Control Board had dismissed the FIRC holding that, the plaintiff has failed to prove his title to the property. Hence, trial court was not justified in decreeing tiiT, suit of the plaintiff.

In view of the above contentions, the point that arises for consideration is that:

Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court calls for interference?

Insofar as the dismissal of the HRC No. 10776/1987 is concerned, it is not in dispute. However, the dismissal of the said HRC did not preclude the plaintiff from filing a suit for declaration nor it constitutes res judicata. The dismissal of the HRC has given cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit. Plaintiff to prove his title, he has produced sale deed Ex.P1 and also has produced Ex.P2, the tax demand register of the Village Panchayat showing hi;, name entered in the revenue records, tax paid receipts as per Exs.P3 and P4, the encumbrance certificate - Ex.P6 shows Rarnakrishnaiah''s name in respect of property. Ex.P7 does not show that it was standing in the name of Ramakrishnaiah. These documents prima facie prove that the plaintiff has a title to the suit schedule property.

In Ex.P1, the vendors had acquired the suit schedule property by a registered sale deed dated 13.10.1974 and was converted by order dated 20th April 1988. Considering these documents, the trial court has held that the plaintiffs case for title has been established.

To prove to the contrary, defendend No. 1 has nither produced any document nor his oral evidence prove his title. His specific case is that, one Adam Sheriff entered into an agreement with the defendant No.1. Agreement itself is not produced, whether Adam Sheriff had title, is also not known. Except oral evidence; defendant No.1 has not produced any document. However, plaintiff has admitted the possession of the defendant. Though the defendant No.1 claims adverse possession, however, there is no proper pleading. Secondly, plaintiff has asserted the title even much before the filing of the suit by filing an eviction petition and issuing notice, as such, there is no evidence to show that the defendant No.1 had perfected his title to the suit schedule property. Apart from that, the defendant has not produced evidence to prove the adverse possession.

The trial court considering this evidence and also the evidence of the defendant No.1 has found that the plaintiff has proved the title to the suit property and further proved that the defendant No.1 has not shown as to how he acquired the property nor he has produced any agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. DefendantNo.1 has failed to prove his title to the suit schedule property and hasalso failed to prove that the defendant No.1 has perfected title, by adverse possession. Hence, I find no error in the findings of the trial court, holding that the plaintiff has proved his title, and entitled for possession. Hence, the finding of the trial court being based on proper appreciation of the material evidence on record does not call for interference.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and same is dismissed.

However, no order as to coast in this appeal.