Ashok Jethanand Jotwani, vs Kishor S/O.Tejanathsa Pawar, on 25 October, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ashok Jethanand Jotwani, vs Kishor S/O.Tejanathsa Pawar, on 25 October, 2010

AGAENS? ma. JUa<:«:*vIEN? mar: 'i2»€}4A2€;':EG ANS zf«:§1;5':':.§¥i;e::"£'z15E mssm EN oismgeggsazzeag ON mg FILE 0;? _1::r;§:_i:%fV JUDGE {JR }Z}N.} $2 JMFC AT HUBLI, DECREBQ 5:35; $';§IT1., FILED FUR POSSESSION. M V THIS APPEAL COMING ON FCER I:-1rf;f17*A*£fINc;'JU::£:;_M£1~:T ' mis BAY, THE: CQURT DELIVERED THE? 1?_@'1,L0"W.:N«<:r: «. ' JUDG1§j£_ENT ~ A _ This is 21 defendants' app€'éiViL;..V:i:11sgstidhiﬁgghe .':c;er:fectness and legality of the giafgd passed in RA NQJ55/2010 by the' Judge, Hubli, vvhsraunder judg:r:iC:1:i€§_' NGJBS3/2009 by the Prl. c:m1:' 12.04.2010 came to be confirmed~a;r"id -a1A5peaV1;am"e--.tt)-be di$ﬁ1iSS€da

2. ime fa<:is._-511V:'n;t«~3hE11 is-ad.i11g to fﬁing' of {his appeai are as under»

3.; fhe 3;:ii~53é§'1e:i:;ie ggreperty is 3; portign 9? semposite

7.§:¥§pe.:%;:,s b¥'e:§;*i§ig._vN9.516;fB + 525/mt SE W336 yeah: 'bearing R'1é'i:1_i::§;;.g,ﬁi/ Séigiian Read Eiubii ﬁzeassurizsg 313.38 'E'§§_;é' -<'::::'mpa$£':§ progerty Came is: 'mas acsguired by Eihs W"'f:T'. 'g:j%§;2ﬁVfa:§§:?-- "ef gsﬂaintiff zméssz" a §€g:is:<3§=:d E6336 efiesd éaisé;

'§E.{}V"§".»E,§3%EA. E5; aértue sf yighé £0 gufr:>~i€as€ maﬁa? ':56 saié E6336 ;i:%::zis.§, péaimﬁffs &§EC€S§@E"S afs said is 323113 subwieaageé $26 Sui:

gfjhséuéﬁ prapeziy in faxfeur GE def€:2é€:r:i,:~:s' 8,§f1Cj€$?;GZ'S. E2": €926 yaar 252/ »"""'°'"WW pieaéiingg amji évidence an recsrdg 'ma! itaurf; by R3 jz1::1.g:ief1:€:«.x:2 '{~g:";d éeeree Ciateci E2,(}«:L20i{3 ﬁecreed the piairiiiffs the deféndants ':9 }:1ar1:i~§v&r xracant pagsbessieﬁ'i3f=:~éi:ii"&;ch€:EvuEé". pmperty U3 the plaintiff by gra:1tingV'».:hrc;€ "';i"';sgE'3} Court 2113:) decreeci the suit fef mesrxéé'-_pi'<3f:its1 éLt..; 11:1? ifaié V ?1,300/- per monih payable by i:vi}i€..:defen<ié¢'1';t§_'i:Q the plaintiff from the date of suit till Vacant possession of suit schedule property t0_t1:: ¢ p1aif1ti_ff, ' '

8. The said jalﬁgmeigt an:1V..:de4cf€fi .\tam'<%; {Q be quesiioned by the defendantss"if:' said appeal came to be resisted appellate Court, an consideririg the .C§;I'1'f€'f1U§)'f:S7 '1'iE1iS(-3d by the learned advacates appearing fCr:j__ *p§1:rfi,e;S4; fafigxulated following paints far its V Cansidgz-;}aiis:1:~ 'x/'\!héa'{:E'9§Aer the p§a%r2%iff~respondeni " "gstabféshed that he is head~Esssee ans Ehe defeﬁdams aye ﬁne Sii§~'§8§"%a§§'ES ands; him «size? the 31.3%': psagerty as an __ ﬂag date 9? ihg suit'?

{E} ES '§§"%§€€ any swrerséer <3? fégéeéiuie G?

we Eeass @585 me 323%: mﬁggrty cfeaieci ands: Exﬁ-E Er: faveur $2' ﬂee ancssésrs $2? me ﬁaimiiff 3929;? iagse 5% 'W, xx," ,,V Ng,,,;»»»-'"

ttzreegré him ried ebgeeted re the eerrzet Subeequerrtiy there were eegetietierte between the piaintiﬁ' and the defendants and there was.j"'e-,T eettiemertt, under which the pieintitte and the joint owners agreed to continue the lease -5 terms and conditions and aocordingiy ah__ag~:eeﬁjent was entered into between the 'pIa'rti«ee, eedy've_f thefb same ie already produced e.ndeemie"*rn'ayV' treated as part and parcel of this writtenrV»etete:rfeent;'; As per the renewed and"--eondi:t§on"e, the defendants hadto pay Vrie-ntishdfft-»7A5/~ only vperrhonth and the defenvdani Carry on the Electronics, RadiVo_,'i'Tapie__'reoo--rd,er other allied businee-es': in additioiniyéo .the.°'__Hot'ei":bosinesst The pre.mjiees5ia:s--:'_origj:in_al'lyz lehodffi did have any rolling shu.ttei;&sf_ 'the*~':zj'eiiii"ternﬁ§swand conditions, the H i'de'feri§:iant'§'}vvVer:e~eii'ewed_"t'o"tiVx roiling shutters to the tertantedibiemisée-ee_:e*nd it was specifically provided that the deté'rtdante:l§eesees had te make necessary eitteré*ii:§iQii:e..'-in ':.he"':§remiees. The other terms and .eeevndétierée.,,_.e.re elee incorporated in the eaid Veg;-reereent, Rrrther, as per the eiauee(9f; e? the eetd * _""eg"reVei:rrrer2t the deier:de.rtte~teeseee were eerrrtitted _i:e*~rr2e5§<e rrrajer repairs arrd etee renexretieee and greee were te be eeee et the eeet er the eeterrdeere erttg, tr: eereeertee er the dew egreemeritd the éeterteerrte eireedgr rrzeee eiteretierre erre rertearetterre Err the eeit ereeerty eee they eterted re eee tee eeree exeteeéveiy fer the eeerrreee ei eieetreriie eeede} eerzeereere iteree ere" eee they 3%' 19 filed queeiiening the juﬁgmerlé and decree ef €j€fi€'/li:':'AE€'Zf1'§.."'._.';?':*:éT7»?"V€:v17'} eihemriee in a suit fer ejeem1en: notice by ene of .€;E§e V' %(,w being sufficient such cententien weuid all' to the gretizéxie }:.<:%_:f;ce?_V I am of the Ceneidered View that efl would not be of assistance '[0 the eplpellanie aI'1£i'?Z£v.f»?\l'if;':.L',f£Vl'ti~.I}£'}:'£ be * L' applicable ﬁe the facts and cireumstaﬁees e:f;_the..p:1*es;ent ease.

21. Al: thie jur1cture,. it..y'v0u'1d b€:e..r;eeEseary teréfer to the judgment of the Horfble ease of RAM PASRICHA V/S. Jg:::A;\_lNAi§H ;}é.3§>:or-t.e*€i7 1976 so 2335 equivalent is held as under:

"15. There"~az1'e»»twoxreasrmsxfor eur not being able to accvielelllihee lélfeily, the plea pertains to ilwe:'Cfer'heEn 'ifjlensuit as if the suit is bad fer nen~§emc_ier ef Such a plea should have been ralsecl,' 'fer llvhef it is worth at the earliest V-':e.}0:::i3!3z§I.l'tulrlity. 'if not done. Secondly, the relation ~ :h_et.yveer:.e:the__parties being that of iandlerd and tenant;

_'«-l'__ehtyV4:'i*§2£e §efn§3§erd eeuéd terminate the tenancy and A ._.4'§estit;;ie::lie suit fer eviction, The ieeaei in such a self H %ue..e:"sA§e;.:leed ézere eeeséieeirzg izhe 'ilﬁe e? ihe Eeeciierif * .ee_.e::dVeT': Seeiier: ééﬁ ef ééée Evidence Act, The Eeeeézi " aztezmel eeey 'aha: 'me Eeaélere eed title ﬁe {lee eremieee es'.

éhe eemreeeeemeeé <3? the éeneeey. Ueeef me geeereé fees, ie a eel: beiweee éeedéere eee ieeerr: fee euestéee ef iiiie ie the ieaeeﬁ §3l'§§§%"€§€ is Eweleveeé. §: %s, %§:e§e'?e:'e, I % 21 eeeéséee 3:: para 13 ef the judgment exeiuees twe eategeeee described therein arid the reie of eeteppe..r;_§j'r._ eppties te Ehese twe categories. The present ease.§__e*€e'r';e:4"V;~ aecerciing te this deeisierzs faiée ender the eategeryf' It is also held in Said ease to the followirgg effeetl; hi' "29r Jurieprudentiallyth it is r:Qt"'eerrecit'h' that 3. <::0-ewner of a propertyhie. its ewher. every part of the eompeeite pr\epeL:"t§}V"er10ng with ethers and it cannot be said ri'a1jt~0wner er a.

fractional ewner ef jvgaesitien will change only ;v'r:ehj' partitie1w.:..take§;~ttﬁgge.ifhVis? therefore? not possih1et:>__ t;:r1e;'e.t1bri1ieV;5iQr1 that the plaintiff who isW_a.d111aitte?:t1y end eowswner of the premtsesv evtrtaeer of premises within the mearﬁztghh Qf @'3_eVet:tOn: _.(i).. It is not necessary to eeta,b1ish;._th::t 'r.>123.ir1"_.i;Viff is the 011]}; owner of the §re;pert,y fer the Vptrrpeseh of Section 13 {1} (E: as long ae 3 V' . €75 e;'eee>--z}fwr;er efthe preperty being at the same time ' eeE§r:re:eteé.ged larxﬁerd ef the ﬁefer:.da:1tsQ' The §u«€2gerrre:i_tv».__e§;;.Rare: '§e.eri<:he eeeae te he Eetteweé by the §t--er;§§3§e%Q2;§'rerrre'V'ffjeert Er: Eaifs. Smite Umbreéia Etfanufeetzrring Ce, '€1?.r:e_f '€33, Shegabeetéei Agezraeeziia §1«:£ee,:i,? by ire,' ans? Gee;

:fe;>e':?teeL't:2 31K 2084 SC 1.323 'iisheretrr it is held: as under:

"e, Hevieg ééeere the ieerrzee eeeeeei tea' the eeiﬁee we ere eeeefiee that the eepeeie are Qeeie te 22 ee eiiemteeee. it is weit eettiee that eee ef the se- ewnere see féée a suit fer evietiee et a tenant in the erepetty generaiiy ewhecf by the ee-ewneret{See Sri;'"--- Rem Pesriehe VSK Jegameth ethers.(t976}4SCG '£84: Dhahrieiai Ve.Kateisi;et'i'be.i_'3f:_':

and ethers,(2002)6 SOC 16. This princip_ie__ie'baseid~ en the doctrine of agency: Qhe' C'G7QWti7eF_: 5 suit fer eviction against the te'ean':,'_"de'ee'itee own behalf in his own righ1;"andVét.3V.'eth age?i'tiiefV':t_h.e "

other co~owners. The conisetttof other.¢0:V.0§vne'reVte' ' assumed as taker: untese-it igvsheinzn that the ether eo--owners werefroth"agr'Aee2t_i::ie"tef-ejec;t the tenant and the suit was filegt'i'i:tVVs,?§i_te .the'i:'--:<;tisegreement. in the preeeht eefee, st,;tf.,t)t;:a'su titedyivby both the co--Q3r;h'e($.iiAIf§)_ije co:_-eqtmere: ' eennot withd raw his t3Qi1S:t--':t';fi mi\éJ'NaV\f*the.: éuiit es to prejudice the °i%"h'eV:s:xit ehhveevtiied, the rights of the :"--parti'es'stati'¢i~ oh the date 0% the suit and the.Le:ttitie'meri't.VAe§. ti";-eiiéee-ewners te seek ejectment

- .. mustibe ed§ud§:;-eciiiby teterence te the date of E»_i._:§:etitutiert Vetvt«he.«euit; the ertty exceptiert being when V _ey.Va;.%;'itt;:e__ et a eubsequeet event the erttittement et /, eeweweere te ejeet the tenant ceezee te ee'e'e;;."iiby est et eertiee er by é:)§3§§'8i§G§"t et tewfi Q , A' 23, Seettet: 8% net the Etitdiert Elvideteee ;%if:t reeﬁe ee t2:.eée:*:~ "$16,. Eetcsppei ef teeeet; em ef iieeeeee et eereen Er: pesseeeiem Ne teeeet et imreeveete egeeertgi, Q?' eeteee etetesieg teteugh eeeh teeentt

3.», »/"I 25 pessessier: was giver: 118:' he can eziefend the suit; er: the grs:>e;r:<i that he has acquired an eutstariﬁing titie bf; adverse pessession te that ef the iandierﬂt A tenant who has been pessession cannot deny his iari<:i10rd's titie, hoxxreveifit may be, SC} long as he has not 0peniy'AAfesi:.0&fefC1 surrendering his possession or lease-hc):b1as:iV toe better title. However: the tenantVita:eti'3tti be that"

his Landlords title is either OI'_ t1ta.t'=i.7ii;. steed determined by the paraffieiint"- u and anly on establishing this faei'_tQtip1e::i"w*itti:: possession he would be entitled. otherwise. in the instant case_,_ ttie1>§'ite there is surrender Qf p0ssessi0n::_ef__ :thTe'-..._param0unt titled holder which eeeording :5 tifieletaivtieﬁ' is that of Shiggaon Matim Admittediy' there' is tie" terminations of tenancy by the paramount title" '§71VeiVii}Le:""t:}? "{\§.a'«'i:$e in Vi€'J=f ef the same, eetitetitioe ef the tef:erit;§e:e}:*eEEe:::Vfshet netiee issueei by plaintiff by one ef the """vee»ewee: efV.thej'..-gérepertjs erithoet erraying ether ee--ew:;e:*s as V

-. :3e;:"-égf eaeziet 'ee aeeeeteé te arid it is §*1€i'€§fg' rejeeteét E26, Evita ijjgeeeaneves weeié eenteeeé {hat theizgit it is e _te:1eziey in eemieee eeﬂ theye is unit}; ef eessessieeg these eerznei; 26 be unity ef eeiaie. in $0 far ae the presemé', §€}'1I£if},C:~,? :r:2IeIVee¥ in the suit is eencernede it ie not the ease ef deferidente the}; there is any divisien ef tenancy amengef. them. The tenancy admit:eii.i§%--.ie-VVa joint tenancy and aiso the tenants namely the de'fe--ndef;fe' ~ ienante in common particularly in view, ef._EX.Pj?7 i2iIi15:é;h.Vrefiee'i:-S 'V that defendant's are tenants in commen 'Vth"er§e"~i_$' me :V'ee.:15ie]If material produced by defendants'>TednjLrar3'z"-te fact. The Horfble Apex Court in the___e"a.ee ef JHA AND OTHERS V/S. RAMESI-ﬁI;zAR_ AND OTHERS reported in AIR (38).a1951:.S€...186'--hae"eL1.g§§"'*e.of1sidered similar plea and has held' 2:13 V. Para 'ii-Me_re Veureﬁiée...';:.'.';1cof§trect of Eeasee Such pafiit'ien}; amen'gs:"severa% 'feeseee inter 88 are usuaéiy '~,ma'de ferV'Ve<ir;s{er:ieﬁce.Cf enjoyment of the ieaseheld but t'hey':ie eei.i_nV §~Ja>;{'.é;?féCt the integrity of the tenancy or _ _ make-.eaVeh. he_ide*.<_ef'~:ie interest in it as e eeearaie holder e: e differeni vtenaricy. in {he present case: 'mere was me:

em aéiegeﬁee that the Eemaney was severee & {he "veei;*e%e.%:éeeane%ee eame mm existence as e yeeeéi ef the ""p~;%i;«»;;:§e::,"eLe--e:e Eeediesei eamégany, fee aiegaeee G? v_§3e£§tE'e:*i éﬁéez' ee emeng the eeveral GWQEES ef the iakéveg 'eeéeééeg eebjeei Ee mekaryeré ieiereei eeuée eei in eey way efieei ihe éeiegréiy ef éhe Eeaee ie ihe eeeeeee ef E31'? eﬁegeeee e?' e Egese eezzifaeiz beeeeen ﬂee see: age eweefe ef the iweieéee & "me different eemere is': tee meizeeee §%"i?§%'§Si The leieéafeg §'3§?§§i'?g in the zsiééege see remeiee e, eiegie heleérwg e %%i was me': eiéegeﬁ the: E': was eeiii ee in "r>,w 1 2'?

different hetdéhge. A3! eweete ef the takbereg ietereet are jeintiy zeepeneibte fer payment of the eees te Gevtt 8: it was because et their detautt Eh payment ef the sees that tbe"--.T whete iakhraj interest was sold in the certificate safef'~t§t'~«. "".,A this situation none of the conditions neeessartfterthe: 2- ' application of the doctrine of merger can be.Veeid..V:te~h_eve % been made out by the altegatienst macteéin .'t'f'teVVgV'43>'i3ni.:'VtV1'7 the ptaihtitfs own case the lease ievstilit-atiitxive one 'reepe'ett__ .« ef the six anna interest ot the defendants fire't_'v_per't & in.' '' these circumstances it ieVn.Q:t"'pessibAte te hetei become extinct to the extent=.e f eight em_eT'intere§st of Bisheshwar Devat Ssingh in=the"ab;een"ee of an'yV'aiie'eation that any fresh contrueet',Tex'm_eeee }.3r.'E'kng§>€i.e':j,yvas arrived at between the parties,|eeseehot'iit'~vh'aeV..'not in any way been d[ew'ned'.in the re\!ersio«nA"&L' iejknraj & mokarrari intereeteje i§ti_II*.'intaet.__ In View of ihe sétm.je,_ the ee_ntef1ti0t1_ if Mr. Ujjannanavar on this issue at.-Se eennet be Veeeeegjteriend deserves to be rejected and ti;

is. hereby :_'ej€CtEe4'€r~.

;*eee%»'e:*ei et eveeeeeeteié efe éihe teeteeee et" ene ef the ee»eWt:e§e wee ieite eubfeet V-;"eeit'et" et' eeneiderettee by this Ceurt tn the ease ef W 7'veeeeeea_eeeeteee Wet SYED ezeemgemeet reeeeed tn ILR ,. I .«.«»*"""/V' 129$ tehereueder it is iiteid ee fet§e*eze:~v 28 The euesiieh perieieieg '£0 maintainability ef Sui': lei' reeevery ef eeeseeeier: at {he Eesiehee ef eee ef ee-

ewhere is no more reeieiegre since there are eaiehe ex' decieiene of variees Ceurte including ihlefx' court en the point sustaining the meihtaihabéiilgﬁiell" ' the suit 01' this nature.

"{5} There is a Galena ef"E:le"Cl3«iehe whi<§h._ have taken the View that one of the Ce}ol5rhei'e 'eah bring a suit for ejecting .»e-._t;respa'e.ee'i' from"'ilflie..., property owned by him and ollliieieeither 3' '_htl'y er ale' CO=*OWl"l€l'S; the basis .belngV.>:l1at"Ll1e has a fight to"

held every inch ef thieieiht'pro%pert'y'--.ign§il'la divieieh takes place." V _ ' 'V ReQen'il.y'_the iﬁupireirhe fhev ease of A.Viswe__mal'h.4e ah;ii.e1Cthera.: xiqepelélilai Tahslloar for Land...VAe<j:;i_ieitlVeh «.l\Vle;l'efV:'a'hd Qthers, has held _ "lit is s'ell:led»eEe"wVi.__tVh'*al: ehe of the co-owners can isle a sail: :a'm':i.--:fe::o§xer the property against etrahgere' e_nd'the decree would ehure to al': the ee~ ._'1{:wg:.ere.,e_ it iexeqee-l«§3f settled law that me eeewhe:

A " -. .e'efli'e-lie rlgh: title and interest ii": any pariieuier %§ee*?}e«{e §:éj'e§:§ee Ehezeei Cm the eihes' heee he has i ' fighl; :::iee:e ihiereei: Er: every pet: and parcel el lee jeieé eyeeerty e? eeeereeeegy {meet Hieee Lee' by eii V 'A i?%eV'eeeee::enere, .... ,.e eeezrxmey ie es mash er: ewee§ ef ewe eeiire eeeeeey ee e ee§e eveser ef ihe ;}f'G§3€l'I'_\,?. it ie eel; {2.C%%"f'€£§ ﬁe eey the': e »'Z§SeC>Wl"'i€§§S eeeeeﬁy wee ee': es 1:4")/f 30 Her Cerztezxdeé befere {he {rial Ceuiri er the appeﬂaée (tear: {hie Court is rzei inciineé is awaré any eeste "ice the :'espende::t,fp1ai.:2.tiff in this appeei.

33. In Vi€\7£.7 ef the discussions made herein abeyee jfeiiewiezzgi V' erder is passed:

ORDERa {i} Appeal is dismissed am§""the juVdg..mem:: decree passed :'~:.ri_a%'V.,_v eoL1t't.,_in_7 OS No'383/2CO_E. e'* dated C: _ and as affirmed by appellate crjjuftiin RA'Ne,65/2010 dategi :je.ef2o*:;_0 is he:reb:y'effi'_rmedf.

(ii) .._a1":rf1d"e:re..<f9rdered to 'be .... ..ebQume.'D§2*1 tiespeeiive gdariieeg, 31$ §:%1f:etL::1?e',.44vSEi:jR§ei1ikarjunaswamy B. Hiremath, iearned eeu:1s'<§i« .,2£ee¢é;::ng_ 'e';1."~7beha1f of Mr. Ujjannanavar would :_»g:sr'e§; ._':"iii«3.a'§ 'iime uei .... geee year be granted if} the e;<:Afe:1éa:1ie*jVe§:sg:ieﬁe.:f1'ae ﬁe quit vacate ené eielivey vacate:

' " V peeeeeeéiéiz ei euié echegiuie pyemieee ené he e:§,'e::e:ic1:e tea? he wezﬁé fiéex fzeeeeeerjg af£3;§.e;<:i': ef zméeeiekieg <A2§,':';'::§:: ihyee eiefgs 'i°;ef22":AA£e%:i.e,}? ie the eeizé ef§es:?i;. VM .. 32. Seer, Prekesh K, Jawaikar Weeﬁé eepeee eeiﬁ §I'8;§f€f 'ﬁg VA "---.ee:":ie:<zdi§:g ihai zieferzcienée Ezaire 3.§§€g.5i:€« eeeureé aétemete v'o«4"/'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court