N. Bhaskara vs B.V. Purushothama

B. Sreenivas Gowda, J.—Plaintiff in O.S. No. 10326/05 has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing his suit, brought for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment and decree of the trial court.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the suit before the trial court.

Case of the plaintiff is that he was in possession of the suit premises as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- as per the rental agreement dated 06.06.1986. The owners of the suit property namely Sri. S.N. Jayachandran @ S.N. Shanthalingam and his wife Smt. J. Velumani intimated the plaintiff by letter dated 13.07.1988 that suit property has been sold to one Smt. Shanthi A. Giri under a registered sale deed. Plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s. Nanjundeshwara Industries. Karnataka Steel Industries is in existence from 05.11.1987 and plaintiff is running the same. Defendant is unknown to the plaintiff and there is no relationship of whatsoever between him and the plaintiff. Defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit property, dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit premises. On 26.11.2005, about 25 persons unknown to the plaintiff came with a JCB and 4 tractors entered the factory premises and threatened the watchman and started demolishing the industry. Plaintiff has lodged a complaint with the police and they stopped the demolition. Defendant and his men forcibly, without due process of law, evicted the plaintiff from the suit property and they have taken the possession illegally and now defendant is trying to put up construction. Hence, the plaintiff has brought the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant.

Defendant has filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contending, plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property at any point of time. Originally one S. Nataraju purchased the land bearing Sy. Nos. 32/14, 32/9 and 4/3 from Mysore Hosieries and Silk Factory through its Directors and Liquidators which was totally measuring 3 acres 14 guntas and subsequently it was numbered as No. 274. The revenue documents were standing in his name. He executed a will in favour of Smt. Rajeshwari and Smt. Velumani in the year 1965 and they are the beneficiaries under the will. One Somasundaram executed a general power of attorney in 1980 in favour of S.N. Jayachandran and another general power of attorney in 1986 executed by Smt. Rajeshwari in favour of Smt. Velumani and in 1986, one more general power of attorney was executed by Subbaiah, Sukumar and Sarojini in favour of Jayachandran in respect of the entire property measuring 10,800/- sq.mtrs. The original owners, after forming layouts and sites, sold the sites to different persons, one such site was purchased by the defendant''s vendor Smt. Shanthi A. Giri from Jayachandran. From the said Shanthi A Giri, defendant has purchased the suit property. With the above grounds, he has prayed for dismissal of the suit.

On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the trial court has framed the following issues:--

"(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was illegally and forcibly dispossessed from the suit schedule property?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for restoration of the possession of the suit schedule property as prayed for?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for?

(iv) What order or decree?"

Plaintiff, in support of his case has examined himself as PW-1 and two witnesses as PWs 2 and 3. The documents produced by the plaintiff were marked as Exs. P1 to P18. On behalf of the defendant, defendant himself was examined as DW-1 and documents produced by him were marked as Exs. D1 to D9. The trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has answered issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the ''negative'', holding that plaintiff has failed to prove, he was illegally and forcibly dispossessed from the suit property and he is entitled for restoration of the possession of the suit property and consequently, dismissed the suit.

Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that the plaintiff who was inducted into the possession of the suit premises under rental agreement dated 06.06.1986 by the original owner Jayachandran @ Shanthalingam and his wife Velumani continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property even after his lessors had sold the suit property in favour of Smt. Shanthi A Giri and even after Smt. Shanthi A Giri sold the suit property in favour of the defendant, plaintiff was continued to be in possession of the suit property under the defendant. He submits, when the plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, he should not have been evicted from the possession of the suit property except in accordance with law. He submits, documents produced by the plaintiff at Exs. P1 to P18 would show, plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as tenant and he was illegally dispossessed from the possession of the suit property by the defendant and that he is entitled for restoration of possession of the suit property in his favour. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein submits, plaintiff never in possession of the suit property at any point of time. The documents produced by the plaintiff do not show that he was residing in the suit property as tenant and that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree of the trial court warranting interference of this Court and prays for dismissal of the suit.

The specific case of the plaintiff is that he was in possession of the suit property as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- as per the agreement of lease deed dated 06.06.1986 executed by the owners of the suit property viz., S.N. Jayachandran @ Shanthalingam and his wife Smt. J. Velumani. No such lease agreement dated 06.06.1986 stated to have been executed by the original owners in favour of the plaintiff is produced before the trial court, whereas Ex. P1 dated 13.07.1988 was issued by the original owners of the suit property namely S.N. Jayachandran and his wife Velumani in favour of Karnataka Steel Industries informing that they have sold the portion of premises No. 274, Mysore road, Bangalore to Smt. Shanthi A Giri under a registered deed of sale dated 13.07.1988 and Karnataka Steel Industries which was in occupation of the said portion as tenant was requested to pay the rent to Smt. Shanthi A Giri. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the proprietor of M/s. Nanjundeshwara Industries and now it is Karnataka Steel Industries and he is running it in the suit property.

To appreciate the case of the plaintiff that he is the proprietor of M/s. Nanjundeshwara Industries which is now named as Karnataka Steel Industries, which was in occupation of the suit property as tenant under the original owners and continued to be so even after original owners sold the suit property in favour of Smt. Shanthi A Giri, plaintiff has not produced the documents to show that he is the proprietor of either M/s. Nanjundeshwara Industries or Karnataka Steel Industries. Ex. P2 is a receipt dated 29.06.1992 issued by S.N. Jayachandran in favour of Karnataka Steel Industries having received rent of Rs. 19,000/-.

It is to be noted that S.N. Jayachandran sold the suit property in favour of Smt. Shanthi A. Giri under the registered sale deed dated 13.07.1988. In the letter Ex. P1, they have intimated Karnataka Steel Industries stating that they had sold portion of the property bearing No. 274 in favour of Smt. Shanthi A Giri w/o Sri. S. Arunagiri and d/o S.P. Krishnan, in which, Karnataka Steel Industries was the tenant and intimated Karnataka Steel Industries continued to pay rent to Smt. Shanthi A Giri and that Exs. P1 and P2 would not help the case of the plaintiff that he is residing in the suit property as tenant under Smt. Shanthi A Giri. Ex. P3 is another receipt dated 11.06.1993 stated to have been issued by S.N. Jayachandran in favour of Karnataka Steel Industries. As already stated S.N. Jayachandran had sold the suit property in favour of Smt. Shanthi A Giri on 13.07.1988 and that receipt Ex. P3 dated 11.06.1993 issued by him in favour of Karnataka Steel Industries has no value in the eye of law, similarly Ex. P4.

Ex. P5 is a partnership deed entered on 05.12.1987, wherein Champalal Jain and N. Bhaskara are shown to be the other partners of Karnataka Steel Industries. No documents are produced to show that the plaintiff is one of the partners of Karnataka Steel Industries. On the other hand, it is the case of the plaintiff that he is the proprietor of Karnataka Steel Industries. The trial court considering this material aspect of the matter, was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

I have carefully gone through the judgment and decree of the trial court and do not find any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs.