Bangalore District Court
Infant Advertising Pvt vs Mr. K. B. Yellappa Reddy on 24 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
(CCH21)
Dated this 24th Day of February 2020
PRESENT:
Sri. MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.B.A. LL.B.,
LXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
(CONCURRENT CHARGE)
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.26777/2011
PLAINTIFFS: 1 INFANT ADVERTISING PVT.
LTD
O/at: S703, 7th Floor
Manipal Centre, Dickenson Road
Bengaluru - 560 042.
REP BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR
Mr. M.K.KURIAKOSE
2 M. K. KURIAKOSE
S/o. Late M.C.Kurian
Aged about 58 years
R/at: "Infant Ark"
No.399, 9th Main, 1st Cross
2
OS.26777/2011
HAL 2nd Stage
Bengaluru - 560 008.
V/s
DEFENDANTS: 1 Mr. K. B. YELLAPPA REDDY
S/o. Late. Sri. Bodappa Reddy
(Dead By Lrs)
1(a) PARVATHAMMA
W/o. Late Balakrishna Reddy
Aged about 70 years
1(b) K.Y.SURYANARAYANA REDDY
Aged about 72 years
1(c) CHINNAMMA
Aged about 68 years
1(d) JANAKAMMA
Aged about 66 years
1(e) HEMA REDDY
Aged about 64 years
1(f) KANTHAMMA
Aged about 62 years
1(g) PARVATHAMMA
3
OS.26777/2011
Aged about 60 years
1(a) TO (g) ARE R/AT:
No.334, 4th A cross
7th Block, Koramangala
Bengaluru - 560 095.
2 Mr. K.Y. SRINIVASA REDDY
S/o. K.B.Yellappa Reddy
Aged about 44 years
R/at: No.292, 1st Floor
3rd B Cross, 8th Block
Koramangala
Bengaluru - 560 095.
3 Mr. D.V.LAKSHMAN RAO
S/o. Late D.Venkata Subba Rao
(Dead by Lrs)
3(a) V.L. PARVATHAMMA
W/o. Late. D.V.Lakshman Rao
Aged about 84 years
3(b) V.L. HEMA MALINI
D/o. Late. D.V.Lakshman Rao
Aged about 64 years
3(c) V.L. VIDYA SHANKAR
S/o. Late. D.V.Lakshman Rao
Aged about 61 years
4
OS.26777/2011
3(d) V.L. SRIRANJINI
D/o. Late. D.V.Lakshman Rao
Aged about 59 years
3(e) V.L.HARINI
D/o. Late. D.V.Lakshman Rao
Aged about 58 years
3(f) V.L. NALINI
D/o. Late. D.V.Lakshman Rao
Aged about 53 years
3(g) V.L. RAVI SHANKAR
S/o. Late. D.V.Lakshman Rao
Aged about 49 years
3(a) TO (g) R/AT:
No.71, Shankarapark
Ranga Rao Road, Shanarapuram
Bengaluru - 560 004.
Date of Institution of the suit 14/10/2011
Nature of the Suit (Suit on pronote, suit for
DECLARATION &
declaration and possession, suit for injunction,
INJUNCTION
etc.)
Date of the commencement of recording of the
01/07/2016
Evidence.
5
OS.26777/2011
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 24.02.2020
Year/ Month Day/s
Total duration
s /s
08 04 10
JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs have filed the instant suit against defendants to declare that, the Termination letter dated:03.10.2011 issued by defendants 1 & 2 is null and void, restraining defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of 9 hoardings existing in the suit property and entering into lease agreement with 3rd parties for doing hoardings advertisement business in the suit property and for costs.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. 1st plaintiff is a licensed Advertising company and 2nd plaintiff is its Managing Director. In the year 1990 plaintiffs took the suit property on lease from 3 rd defendant 6 OS.26777/2011 and put up 9 hoardings. To put up hoardings, the plaintiffs have invested huge amount. In the year 2003, defendants 1 & 2 started to interfere with plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of hoardings installed in the suit property by contending that, they are the owners of the suit property. They put pressure on plaintiffs by stating that, if they want to continue the hoardings in the suit property, they have to enter into lease agreement with them. Defendants 1 & 2 have given requisition to BESCOM to disconnect electricity connection taken by plaintiffs to the 9 hoardings installed in the suit property. On the basis of the letter given by defendants 1 & 2, the BESCOM has disconnected the electricity connection. Therefore plaintiffs sustained loss. plaintiffs contend that, when defendants 1 & 2 started interfering with their possession and enjoyment of 9 hoardings installed in the suit property, they intimated the same to defendant No.3 to take necessary action. Defendant 7 OS.26777/2011 No.3 has not taken steps to prevent the illegal and high handed acts of defendants 1 & 2. Therefore plaintiffs were in a difficult situation to carry on the business of advertisement and also about the safety of the hoardings installed in the suit property.
Hence, in the year 2008, due to the pressure of defendants 1 & 2, plaintiffs entered into lease agreement dated:12.06.2008 with them for the period of 3 years i.e., from 12.06.2008 to 11.06.2011. Plaintiffs entered into 2 nd lease agreement with defendants 1 & 2 on 14.06.2011. After the plaintiffs entered into lease agreements, on 12.06.2008 defendants 1 & 2 gave no objection to the BESCOM to give electricity connection to the suit property. After they gave no objection, electricity supply was restored to the hoardings. plaintiffs contend that, after they entered into lease deed with defendants 1 & 2, 3 rd defendant has issued letter dated:06.08.2011 and called upon them to pay the arrears of rent and also to renew the lease. After receipt of 8 OS.26777/2011 the letter, they issued reply dated:07.08.2011. Plaintiffs contend that, there is dispute between defendants in respect of title of suit property. In view of the said dispute, defendants 1 & 2 are interfering with their possession and enjoyment of 9 hoardings installed in the suit property. On 03.10.2011 defendants 1 & 2 issued legal notice for terminating the contract. The said notice is null and void. Plaintiffs contend that, defendants 1 & 2 have been continuously interfering with their possession and enjoyment of 9 hoardings installed in the suit property and they are also making attempts to enter into contract with other advertising companies to give the suit property on lease. Plaintiffs contend that, they invested huge amount for installation of hoardings in the suit property. Therefore, if defendants enter into lease agreement with 3rd parties for installation of hoardings heavy loss and inconvenience will be caused to them. Therefore left with no alternative, they have 9 OS.26777/2011 filed the instant suit. On these and other grounds stated in the plaint, plaintiffs pray to decree the suit and to grant the relief of declaration and injunctions as prayed for.
3. Defendants 1 & 2 resisted the suit by filing written statement. They denied the plaint averments in toto except admitting that, plaintiffs have installed 9 hoardings in the suit property. Defendants 1 & 2 contend that, the lease agreement which the plaintiffs alleged to have entered with them are unregistered. Therefore they are having no value in the eye of law. They contend that, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and plaintiffs. Therefore the plaintiffs have no legal right to seek injunction. Defendants 1 & 2 contend that, as owners they are in possession of the suit property. On these and other grounds stated in the written statement, defendants 1 & 2 pray to dismiss the suit and 10 OS.26777/2011 sought counter claim restraining the plaintiffs from entering into the suit property and doing advertisement business therein.
4. 3rd defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto except admitting that, in the year 1990 plaintiffs entered into lease agreement with him and installed 9 hoardings in the land in Sy.No.149/2. 3 rd defendant contends that, the contention of the plaintiffs that, due to the pressure of defendants 1 & 2, they entered into a new lease agreement with them, is false. Defendants 1 & 2 have no manner of any right, title or interest over the suit property. Therefore they are not competent to enter into lease agreement in respect of suit property. 3Rd defendant contends that, the plaintiffs colluding with defendants 1 & 2 have filed the instant suit to avoid payment of rents to him. Further 3rd defendant contends that, the land in Sy.No.149 of Koramangala village village is totally 11 OS.26777/2011 measuring 3 acres 33 guntas. The said village is Jodia/ Kayam Gutta village. The predecessors of Dhwarakanath were the Jodidars of the said village. The land in Sy.NO.149 was a tenanted land. One Sarakki Nagappa was the tenant of the said land. He had 4 sons. Under the Deed of Partition dated:16.08.1932, the sons of Sarakki Nagappa effected partition of the said land. In the said partition, the land in Sy. No.149 was allotted to the share of Sarakki Bhoddappa Reddy (father of 1st defendant). Sarakki Bhoddappa Reddy had 3 sons namely 1st defendant, Sri. K.B.Chinnaswamy Reddy and another. K.B.Chinnaswamy Reddy the son of Sarakki Bhoddappa Reddy came out from the joint family by executing Release Deed dated:26.09.1956 interalia taking 1 Acre 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.149 to his share. 3 rd defendant contends that, he purchased the said 1 acre 35 guntas of land from K.B.Chinnaswamy Reddy under the Registered sale deed 12 OS.26777/2011 dated:26.05.1958. The land handed over to his possession under the said sale deed is actually measuring 1 acre 37 guntas. Since the date of purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said 1 acre 37 guntas of land. 3 Rd defendant contends that, the land in Sy.No.149 was phoded/ plotted. After effecting phodi, the survey number of the land purchased by him from K.B.Chinnaswamy Reddy has become Sy.No.149/2. He contends that, after the Mysore (personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act 1954 (for brevity Mysore Inam Abolition Act) came into force, on 02.10.1956, the 1 st defendant filed application claiming occupancy right over land in Sy.No.149. The Special Deputy Commissioner, without following the procedure contemplated in law and without mentioning the extent of land vide order dated:19.07.1958, has granted occupancy right of land in Sy.No.149 in favor of 1 st defendant. 3Rd defendant contends that, after he came to know 13 OS.26777/2011 the said order, he filed appeal before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. He has also filed application claiming occupancy right over the land in Sy.No.149/2 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal allowed the said appeal on 19.04.1971. The matter was remanded to the Special Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal, taking into consideration the rival claims made by him and 1 st defendant. The Land Tribunal vide order dated:30.04.1982 granted occupancy right of land in Sy.No.149 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas in his favor. The 3 rd defendant contends that, 1st defendant being aggrieved by the said order filed W.P.No.29188/1992 before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka. It was renumbered as W.P.No.657/1993. The said writ petition was allowed on 19.09.2002 and the matter was again remanded to the Special Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal. After remand, the Land Tribunal conducted enquiry 14 OS.26777/2011 and vide order dated:30.06.2007 has rejected the applications filed by him and also by defendant No.1 claiming occupancy right over the land in Sy.No.149 on Technical grounds. Against the said order he filed W.P.11757/2007 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Defendant No.1 and one M/s.Salarpuria Profin Pvt.Ltd., have also filed W.P.12528/2007 and W.P.13468/2007 respectively. All the 3 Writ petitions were clubbed and common order was passed on 17.08.2010. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has allowed the said Writ petitions and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. Against the said order, he filed Writ Appeal No.361/2010 before the Division Bench of Hon'ble High court of Karnataka. 3Rd defendant contends that, the sons of 1st defendant filed Os.13/1968 against him and others seeking the relief of declaration to declare that, the Release Deed dated:26.09.1956 and sale deed dated:26.05.1958 executed by 15 OS.26777/2011 K.B.Chinnaswamy Reddy are not valid and binding on them. The said suit was dismissed on 05.12.1975. In the said case the Court has declared the Release Deed dated:26.09.1956 and the Sale deed dated:26.05.1958 executed by K.B.Chinnaswamy Reddy are valid and binding on children of 1 st defendant. The sons of 1st defendant have not challenged the judgment passed on O.S.No.13/1968. Therefore the findings given therein are binding on 1st defendant and also his children. 3Rd defendant contends that, having regard to the findings given in the Judgment in Os.13/1968, 1st defendant cannot be allowed to contend that, he is having right over the land in Sy.No.149/2. Therefore the counter claim filed by 1 st defendant and his son the 2nd defendant, is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed inlimine. 3Rd defendant contends that, after purchase of land in Sy.No.149/2 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas, he converted it for commercial purpose, constructed building and commercial 16 OS.26777/2011 sheds and given on rent to various tenants. He has given a portion of land in Sy.No.149/2 to plaintiffs for installation of hoardings. 3Rd defendant contends that, during the subsistence of tenancy between him and plaintiffs, the plaintiffs cannot deny his title and enter into fresh lease agreement with defendants 1 & 2. Plaintiffs and defendants 1 & 2 colluding with each other might have created lease agreements in respect of land given by him to plaintiffs to put up hoardings. The said lease agreements are having no value in the eye of law. Defendant No.3 contends that, when there is no valid tenancy between plaintiffs and defendants 1 & 2, the question of terminating the tenancy or contract by issuing letter dated:03.10.2011 would not arise. 3 Rd defendant contends that, from the averments of the plaint, it is clear that, he never interfered with plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of leased property. Therefore there is no cause of action to seek the relief 17 OS.26777/2011 of injunction against him. 3Rd defendant contends that, plaintiffs colluding with defendants 1 & 2 have filed the instant suit stating false and imaginary facts. Therefore plaintiffs are not entitled for the equitable relief of injunction. On these and other grounds stated in the written statement, 3 rd defendant prays to dismiss the suit.
5. Plaintiffs resisted the counter claim of defendants 1 & 2 by filing rejoinder. In the rejoinder plaintiffs reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. Plaintiffs contend that, they are in possession and enjoyment of suit property. Defendants 1 & 2 are not in possession and enjoyment of suit property. The title dispute between defendants 1 & 3 is pending. Therefore defendants 1 & 2 are not entitled for the relief of injunction against them. On these and other grounds stated in the re joinder, plaintiffs pray to dismiss the counter claim. 18
OS.26777/2011
6. After 3rd defendant filed written statement, defendants 1 & 2 have filed additional written statement on 05.12.2011. In the Additional written statement they contend that, the tenancy right of land in Sy.No.149 cannot be sold in favor of 3rd defendant. Therefore the sale deed dated:26.05.1958 upon which the 3rd defendant is placing reliance to establish his right over the suit property is voidabinitio and it has no value in the eye of law. Defendants 1 & 2 contend that, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the tenancy rights. Therefore the findings given by the Civil Court in O.S.13/1968 would not operate as resjudicata. Further they contend that, the Special Deputy Commissioner has rightly conferred the tenancy right of land in Sy.No.149 in favor of 1 st defendant vide order dated:19.07.1956. They contend that, in view of tenancy dispute is now pending before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka, 3 rd 19 OS.26777/2011 defendant cannot contend that, he is having right over the suit property. Defendants 1 & 2 contend that, plaintiffs have filed the instant suit at the instigation of 3 rd defendant to create complications. On these and other grounds stated in the Additional written statement, defendants 1 & 2 pray to dismiss the suit.
7. During the pendency of the suit defendant No.1 & 3 were passed away. Their wife and children were brought on record as their legal heirs and legal representatives and they were designated as Defendant No.1(a) to (g) and Defendant No.3(a) to (g).
8. Defendant No.2 is the son of 1st defendant. Since he is already on record, the other legal heirs of defendant No.1 were brought on record as defendants 1(a) to (g). Defendant No.1(a) to (g) by appointing 2nd defendant as their attorney 20 OS.26777/2011 holder have filed written statement. They denied the contention of the plaintiffs that, in the year 1990 after entering into lease agreement with 3rd defendant, they (plaintiffs) installed hoardings in the suit property. They contend that, in the year 2008, after entering into lease agreement with defendants 1 & 2, plaintiffs installed hoardings in the suit property. They denied that, from the year 2003 defendants 1 & 2 started to interfere with hoarding advertisement business of plaintiffs by contending that, they are the owners of the suit property and they forced plaintiffs to enter into lease agreement with them and due to the assurance given by defendants 1 & 2 that, if they enter into lease agreement with them, they will not create any problem, plaintiffs entered into lease agreement dated:12.06.2008 with defendants 1 & 2. The legal heirs of the 1st defendant reiterated the contention that, the suit property is a lease hold right property of 1st defendant and the dispute in 21 OS.26777/2011 respect of grant of occupancy right is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. They contend that, plaintiffs put in possession of the suit property as the tenants of defendants 1 & 2. Therefore after the death of 1 st defendant, defendant No.2 and defendants 1(a) to (g) become the landlords of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs violated the terms of the lease agreement, therefore by issuing notice dated:03.10.2011 the tenancy of the plaintiffs was terminated. After termination of tenancy, plaintiffs have no right to continue their hoardings advertisement business in the suit property. Therefore they are liable to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of leased property to them. They contend that, plaintiffs by creating false and concocted story of interference by defendants 1 & 2 have filed the instant suit. Plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands. They want to be in possession of the suit property without paying rents. Defendants 1(a) to (g) contend 22 OS.26777/2011 that, in view of plaintiffs continued their unauthorized possession over the leased property, they are liable to pay damages of Rs.20,00,000/ per annum. On these and other grounds stated in the written statement, defendants 1(a) to (g) pray to dismiss the plaintiffs suit and sought counter claim directing the plaintiffs to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of leased property (suit property) and to pay damages of Rs.20,00,000/ per annum from date of counter claim till plaintiffs vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the leased property.
9. After defendants 1(a) to (g) filed written statement along with counter claim through their attorney holder - the 2 nd defendant, plaintiffs filed rejoinder. Plaintiffs denied the contention of defendants 1(a) to (g) that, they installed hoardings in the suit property for the 1 st time in the year 2008 23 OS.26777/2011 after entering into lease agreement dated:12.06.2008 with defendants 1 & 2. Plaintiffs reiterated their contention that, since 1990 they have been doing hoarding advertisement business in the suit property. Plaintiffs contend that, defendants 1 & 2 denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and contend that, they are in possession of the suit property. So contending defendants 1 & 2 sought counter claim seeking the relief of injunction. Contrary to the said contention, defendants 1(a) to (g) contend that, plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property as tenants of defendants 1 & 2, their tenancy was terminated, therefore they have to be ejected from the leased property. Plaintiffs contend that, the above contentions of defendants 1(a) to (g) are contradictory and mutually destructive to the contentions taken by defendants 1 & 2 and they are not entitled to take such contradictory and mutually destructive contentions. Plaintiffs contend that, the 24 OS.26777/2011 alleged termination notice dated:03.10.2011 is not in accordance with law and it will not terminate the tenancy. In addition to the above, plaintiffs reiterated their contention taken in the plaint and reply to the counter claim of defendants 1 & 2 and pray to dismiss the counter claim of defendants 1(a) to (g).
10. Defendants 3(a) to (g) the Lrs of 3 rd defendant filed rejoinder to the counter claim of defendants 1(a) to (g). Defendants 3(a) to (g) in their rejoinder to the counter claim has reiterated the facts stated by defendant No.3 in the written statement and rejoinder to counter claim of defendants 1 & 2. In addition to that, defendants 3(a) to (g) contend that, after filing of this case vide order dated:16.07.2015 the Land Tribunal has conferred the occupancy right of land in Sy.No.149/2 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas in favor of 3 rd 25 OS.26777/2011 defendant. By virtue of said order, 3 rd defendant became the occupant/ owner of property upon which plaintiffs have installed 9 hoardings. In view of the said order, Late 1 st defendant or his Legal heirs namely defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 have no manner of any right over the land in Sy.No.149/2 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas upon which land the plaintiffs have installed hoardings. Therefore defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 are not entitled for the relief of ejectment or damages as claimed. On these and other grounds stated in the rejoinder, defendants 3(a) to (g) pray to dismiss the counter claim of defendants 1(a) to (g).
11. On the basis of afore said pleadings, my predecessor in office has formulated the following Issues & Additional Issues:
26
OS.26777/2011 ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the termination of contract by the defendant Nos.1 & 2 vide letter dated: 03.10.2011 is null and void?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are in lawful possession of suit schedule property as pleaded in the plaint?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they had entered into a lease agreement on 12.06.2008 with the defendant Nos.1 & 2 and under the threat and coercion played by them upon the plaintiffs?
4. Whether the defendant Nos.3(a) to 3(g) prove that, they are the absolute owners of Sy.No.149/2 of K.G.Koramangala, Bengaluru, measuring 1 acre 37 guntas and the defendant Nos.1 & 2 are not at all concerned to it?
5. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that, he himself and Lrs of defendant No.1 are 27 OS.26777/2011 the owners of the Sy.No.149 of K.G.Koramangala, Bengaluru, for a total area measuring 3 acre 39 guntas as contended in their counter claim?
6. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference by all the defendants?
7. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against all the defendants as prayed for?
8. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that, he is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the plaintiffs in respect of Sy.No.149 of K.G.Koramangala, Bengaluru, measuring 3 acres 39 guntas as claimed in his counter claim?
9. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the Ejectment relief sought by the Lrs of 28 OS.26777/2011 deceased defendant No.1 i.e., D1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 against the plaintiffs is barred by Limitation?
2. Whether the Lrs of deceased defendant No.1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 prove that, there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between them and plaintiffs?
3. Whether the Lrs of deceased defendant No.1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 prove that, deceased defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 have duly terminated the tenancy of plaintiff as per termination notice?
4. Whether the Lrs of deceased defendant No.1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 prove that, there is breach of terms and conditions under license or rent agreement taken place in between them and plaintiff?
29
OS.26777/2011
5. Whether the Lrs of deceased defendant No.1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 prove that, plaintiff are liable to pay arrears of rent?
6. Whether the Lrs of deceased defendant No.1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 prove that, they are entitled for Ejectment?
7. Whether the Lrs of deceased defendant No.1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 prove that, the occupation of the plaintiff become illegal after issuance of termination notice and served upon them, accordingly they are entitled for damage as claimed in the counter claim from the date of suit?
8. Whether the Lrs of deceased defendant No.1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 prove that, they are entitled for damages of Rs.20 Lakh per annum against the plaintiffs from the date of counter claim 30 OS.26777/2011 until the date of delivery of the counter claim schedule property as prayed for?
9. Whether the Lrs of defendant No.3(a) to
(g) prove that, they are entitled to get release the amount deposited by the plaintiff?
10. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the counter claim prayers are not maintainable based on the various grounds mentioned in the plaintiffs rejoinder?
11. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the averments made in the written statement and counter claim filed by defendants No.1(a) to (g) cannot be sustained in view of the averments made by the defendants No.1 & 2 in their written statement and counter claim?
12. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the counter claim is improperly valued and court fee paid is insufficient?
31
OS.26777/2011
12. Plaintiffs examined M.K.Kuriakose as PW1 and produced documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.46.
13. 2nd defendant Srinivasa Reddy was examined as DW1. He produced documents marked at Ex.D.11 to Ex.D.19.
14. On behalf of defendants 3(a) to g), defendant No.3(c) was examined as DW2. He produced documents marked at Ex.D.20 to Ex.D.45. During the course of cross examination of PW1, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.10 marked.
15. Heard the arguments on both side. Counsel on both side have submitted written arguments.
16. My findings on the above issues are as under:
ISSUE NO.1: In the Affirmative. ISSUE NO.2: In the Affirmative. ISSUE NO.3: In the Affirmative.32
OS.26777/2011 ISSUE NO.4: Do not arise for consideration. ISSUE NO.5: Do not arise for consideration. ISSUE NO.6: Partly in Affirmative. ISSUE NO.7: Partly in Affirmative. ISSUE NO.8: In the Negative.
ADDL. ISSUE NO.1: In the Negative. ADDL. ISSUE NO.2: In the Negative. ADDL. ISSUE NO.3: In the Negative. ADDL. ISSUE NO.4: In the Negative. ADDL. ISSUE NO.5: In the Negative. ADDL. ISSUE NO.6: In the Negative. ADDL. ISSUE NO.7: In the Negative. ADDL. ISSUE NO.8: In the Negative. ADDL. ISSUE NO.9: In the Affirmative. ADDL. ISSUE NO.10: In the Affirmative. ADDL. ISSUE NO.11: In the Affirmative. ADDL. ISSUE NO.12: In the Negative. ISSUE NO.9: As per the final order for the following:33
OS.26777/2011 REASONS
17. ISSUES 1 to 3 & ADDL. ISSUE NO.2 & 3: These issues are in respect of jural relationship of landlord and tenant, validity of lease agreements and also termination. Therefore to avoid repetition of facts and evidence and also for convenience, they are taken together for consideration.
18. In para No.9 of the plaint, plaintiffs have stated that, in the year 1990, they entered into lease deed with 3 rd defendant in respect of suit property and installed hoardings therein. In para No.9 of the examination in chief, PW1 has reiterated the said contention. Plaintiffs have produced Ex.P.4 Lease Deed dated:06.12.1990 took place between M/s.Infant Advertising Pvt. Ltd represented through its proprietor M.K.Kuriakose, the 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant. 3rd defendant in his written statement has admitted execution of 34 OS.26777/2011 Ex.P.4 lease deed. Thus from the material available on record, it is crystal clear that, 1st plaintiff represented through 2nd plaintiff after entering into Ex.P.4 Lease deed with 3 rd defendant has installed the hoardings in the suit property. Plaintiff has produced Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.24 photos and Ex.P.25 CD which depicts the hoardings installed by them in the suit property.
19. The learned counsel for defendants 1 & 2 has strenuously contended that, the suit property as described in the plaint is land in Sy.No.149 measuring 3 acres 36 guntas. In Ex.P.4 Lease Deed Survey number of the land is not noted. Therefore Ex.P.4 Lease deed is of no assistance to plaintiffs to prove that, as tenants of 3rd defendant they installed hoardings in the suit property.
35
OS.26777/2011
20. In para No.9 of the plaint and also in examination in chief, plaintiffs have stated that, after entering into Ex.P.4 lease deed, they installed hoardings in the suit property i.e., land in Sy.No.149. Defendants 1 & 2 contend that, plaintiffs entered into Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.11 Lease Agreements with 1 st defendant for doing the business of advertisement by putting hoardings. According to defendants 1 & 2 Ex.P.8 is the 1 st lease agreement took place between plaintiffs and 1 st defendant. In para No.1 of the Ex.P.8 Lease Agreement it is stated that, 1 st defendant agreed and permitted the plaintiffs to continue to do the business of 9 advertisement hoardings in the suit property i.e., land in Sy.No.149 measuring 3 acres 36 guntas. Thus from the recitals of Ex.P.8 it is clear that, according to defendants 1 & 2, 1st defendant permitted the plaintiffs to carry on the business of 9 advertisement hoardings which the plaintiffs already installed. It is not the contention of either of the parties 36 OS.26777/2011 that, the place at which the plaintiffs have installed hoardings after entering into Ex.P.4 Lease Deed and the place at which they continued to do the said business under Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.11 Lease Agreements are different. In the cross examination of PW1 by defendants 1 & 2, no attempts was made to elicit that, the hoardings installed by plaintiffs in the year 1990 after entering into Ex.P.4 lease deed is not in the suit property and it was installed at some other place. Defendant No.3(c) V.L.Vidya Shankar who was examined as DW2 in the evidence has stated that, his father late defendant No.3 after purchase of land in Sy.No.149/2 measuring 1 Acre 35 guntas under Ex.D.22 sale deed dated:26.05.1958 has converted it for nonagricultural purpose. Therefore in Ex.P.4 lease agreement, survey number of the land might not have been noted. In addition to that, Ex.P.4 Lease deed was made only to install hoardings adjacent to the compound wall. A portion of land was not given to plaintiffs on 37 OS.26777/2011 lease. Therefore it appears that, for the above reasons, survey number of the land might not have noted in Ex.P.4 lease deed.
21. Admittedly there is dispute between defendant No.1 & 3 in respect of occupancy right over the land in Sy.No.149. In this regard, there were/ are many number of proceedings before Special Deputy Commissioner, Land Tribunal, Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Defendants 3(a) to (g) have produced Ex.D.37 the certified copy of application filed by 1st defendant K.B.Yellappa Reddy before the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South. In the said application 1st defendant has admitted that, 3rd defendant has given the suit property on lease interalia to 1 st plaintiff the M/s.Infant Advertising Pvt Ltd., for installation of hoardings and collecting rents. Ex.D.37 application was filed on 15.06.2007 i.e., before institution of the instant suit. Thus at an undisputed 38 OS.26777/2011 period of time, 1st defendant has admitted that, plaintiffs as the tenants of 3rd defendant installed hoardings in the suit property. When such is the case, the contention of the defendants 1(a) to (g) that, Ex.P.4 is of no assistance to prove that, the said lease deed was made in respect of suit property, cannot be accepted.
22. PW1 in the cross examination made by 3 rd defendant on 05.11.2018 has deposed as under:
"ಆರರಂಭದಲಲ್ಲಿ ವವಾದಿ ಕರಂಪನಿ ಪಪ್ರೊಪಪಪ್ರೊಪ್ರೆೃಟರ್ ಶಿಪ್ ಕರಂಪನಿ ಆಗಿತತತ್ತು ಎನತನ್ನುವುದತ ನಿಜ. ದಿದಿಃ 06.12.1990 ರರಂದತ 3 ನಪನೇ ಪಪ್ರೊತಿವವಾದಿಯವಾರಂದಿಗಪ ವವಾದಿಯರವಾದ ನವಾವು ಲನೇಸ್ ಅಗಿಪ್ರೊಮರಂಟ್ ಮವಾಡಿಕಪಕರಂಡಿದತದ್ದು ಇರತತತ್ತುದಪ ಎನತನ್ನುವುದತ ನಿಜ. ಆ ಕವಾಲದಲಲ್ಲಿ ಕಕಡ ನಮಮ್ಮ ವವಾದಿ ಕರಂಪನಿ ಪಪ್ರೊಪಪಪ್ರೊಪ್ರೆೃಟರ್ ಶಿಪ್ ಕರಂಪನಿ ಆಗಿತತತ್ತು ಎನತನ್ನುವುದತ ನಿಜ. 1998 ರ ನರಂತರ ಕಕಡ ನಮಮ್ಮ ಪಪ್ರೊಪಪಪ್ರೊಪ್ರೆೃಟರ್ ಶಿಪ್ ಕರಂಪನಿ ಮೊದಲತ ಕಪಕೈಗಪಕರಂಡಿದದ್ದು ಹಪಕನೇಡಿರರಂಗಗ್ಸ್ ಬಿಸಿನಪಸ್ ಮತರಂದತವರಪದಿತತತ್ತು ಎನತನ್ನುವುದತ ನಿಜ. 1998 ರರಂದ 2003 39 OS.26777/2011 ರವರಪಗಪ ದವಾವವಾ ಸಸ್ವತಿತ್ತುನಲಲ್ಲಿ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿದದ್ದು ಹಪಕಡಿರರಂಗಗ್ಸ್ ಗಳ ಬವಾಡಿಗಪ ಹಣವನತನ್ನು ನವಾನತ ವವಾದಿ ಕರಂಪನಿ ಪರವವಾಗಿ 3 ನಪನೇ ಪಪ್ರೊತಿವವಾದಿಗಪ ಕಪಕಟಟ್ಟಿದಪದ್ದುನೇನಪ ಎನತನ್ನುವುದತ ನಿಜ. 1998 ರ ನರಂತರ ನಮಮ್ಮ ವವಾದಿ ಕರಂಪನಿ ಡಿನಪನೇ ಪಪ್ರೊತಿವವಾದಿಯ ಟಪನಪರಂಟ್ ಆಗಿ ಪರವತರನಪ ಹಪಕರಂದಿತತತ್ತು ಎನತನ್ನುವುದತ ನಿಜ. 2003 ರ ನರಂತರ ನವಾನತ ದವಾವವಾ ಸಸ್ವತಿತ್ತುನಲಲ್ಲಿ ನಡಪಸತತಿತ್ತುದದ್ದು ಹಪಕಡಿರರಂಗಗ್ಸ್ ಬಿಸಿನಪಸ್ ಬವಾಡಿಗಪ ಹಣವನತನ್ನು ಕಟತಟ್ಟಿವುದತ ನಿಲಲ್ಲಿಸಿದಪದ್ದುನೇನಪ ಎನತನ್ನುವುದತ ನಿಜ."
23. From the above excerpted evidence of PW1, it is clear that, 1st plaintiff when it was proprietor concern entered plaintiffs after entering into Ex.P.4 Lease Deed dated:06.12.1990, with 3rd defendant installed hoardings in the land in Sy.No.149, during the subsistance of tenancy it became private company, from 1990 to 2003 plaintiffs regularly paid rents to 3rd defendant and after 2003 they stopped paying rents to him. During the course of cross examination, PW1 has admitted demanding of arrears of rents by 3 rd defendant by 40 OS.26777/2011 issuing Ex.D.3 Notice dated:28.07.2008; Ex.D.4 Notice dated:17.10.2008 & Ex.D.5 Notice dated:06.08.2011. Plaintiffs have produced Ex.P.20 Reply dated:13.10.2011. In Ex.P.20 plaintiffs have stated that, in view of defendants 1 & 2 started troubling them from doing business of advertisement in the suit property by contending that, they are the owners of suit property, they stopped payment of rents. Thus from the oral and documentary evidence on record and the facts stated by 1 st defendant in Ex.D.37 application, it is clear that, plaintiffs as tenants of 3rd defendant installed hoardings in the suit property for doing advertisement business.
24. In para No.10 and 12 of plaint, plaintiffs have stated that, in the year 2003 defendants 1 & 2 by contending that, they are the owners of suit property started giving trouble to them for doing advertisement business and they posed severe 41 OS.26777/2011 threat of causing damage to the hoardings and also given letter to BESCOM to disconnect the power supply. Under the said circumstances, plaintiffs were forced to enter into Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.11 Lease Agreements with 1st defendant. 2nd plaintiff (PW1) in the cross examination at page No.47 & 48 has stated as under:
"ನವಾನತ ಯಲಲ್ಲಿಪಪ್ಪ ರಪಡಿಡ್ಡಿಯರಂದಿಗಪ ಬವಾಡಿಗಪ ಕರವಾರತ ಮವಾಕಪಕಳಳಳ್ಳುವವಾಗ 3 ನಪನೇ ಪಪ್ರೊತಿವವಾದಿ ಲಕಕ್ಷಣರವಾವ ಈತನಪಕರಂದಿಗಪ ಯವಾವುದಪನೇ ಮವಾತತಕತಪ ಮವಾಡಿಕಪಕಳಳಳ್ಳುವ ಪಪ್ರೊಸರಂಗ ನನಗಪ ಉರಂಟವಾಗಿಲಲ್ಲಿ. ನವಾನತ 1 ಮತತತ್ತು 2 ನಪನೇ ಪಪ್ರೊತಿವವಾದಿಯರಪಕರಂದಿಗಪ ಅವರ ವಕನೇಲರ ಸಲಹಪ ಮನೇರಪಗಪ ದವಾವವಾ ಸಸ್ವತಿತ್ತುನ ಕತರತತ ಕರವಾರತ ಮವಾಡಿಕಪಕರಂಡಿದಪದ್ದುನೇನಪ ಎನತನ್ನುವುದತ ನಿಜ. ದವಾವವಾ ಸಸ್ವತಿತ್ತುನಲಲ್ಲಿನ ಹಪಕಡಿರರಂಗಸ್ ವವ್ಯವಹವಾರ ಮತರಂದತವರಸತವುದಕಪಕ್ಕೆ ನನಗಪ ತಪಕರಂದರಪ ಆಗತವ ಕವಾರಣದಿರಂದ ಪಪ್ರೊತಿವವಾದಿ 1 ಮತತತ್ತು 2 ರವರ ಒತವಾತ್ತುಯಕಪಕ್ಕೆ ಮಣಿದತ ಅವರಪಕರಂದಿಗಪ ಸದರ ಸಸ್ವತಿತ್ತುನ ಕತರತತ ಕರವಾರತ ಮವಾಡಿಕಪಕರಂಡಿದಪದ್ದುನೇನಪ ಎನತನ್ನುವುದತ ನಿಜ."42
OS.26777/2011
25. From the above excerpted statement of PW1, it is clear that, in view of defendants 1 & 2 started troubling plaintiffs to do business of hoardings advertisement in the suit property and in view of their threats that, they cause damage to the hoardings, plaintiffs entered into Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.11 Lease Agreements.
26. The learned counsel for defendants 1 & 2 has strenuously contended that, PW1 in the cross examination has admitted that, he has entered into Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.11 Lease Agreements with 1st defendant by taking legal advice and by admitting the recitals of the said deeds he signed on them. To enter into said agreements, 1st defendant has not put pressure on him. Further the learned counsel for defendants 1 & 2 has stated that, PW1 in the cross examination has admitted that, he do not know, who caused damage to the hoardings installed 43 OS.26777/2011 in the suit property. The statements of PW1 upon which the defendants 1 & 2 are placing reliance are at page No.27 of the cross examination and reads thus:
"ನಿ.ಪ.8 ರ ಬವಾಡಿಗಪ ಕರವಾರತ ಪತಪ್ರೊ ಮವಾಡಿಕಪಕಳಳಳ್ಳುವ ಮತರಂಚಪ ವಕನೇಲರ ಕವಾನಕನತ ಸಲಹಪಯನತನ್ನು ಪಡಪಯಲವಾಗಿದಪಯನೇ ಎರಂದರಪ ಸವಾಕಕ್ಷ ಸದರ ಸಲಹಪಯನತನ್ನು ನಮಮ್ಮ ವಕನೇಲರರಂದ ಪಡಪದತಕಪಕರಂಡಿದಪದ್ದುನೇನಪ ಎರಂದತ ಹಪನೇಳಳತವಾತ್ತುರಪ. ನಿ.ಪ.8 ರರಂದ 10 ರಲಲ್ಲಿ ಎಸ್ ಸಿ ಎರಂದತ ಬರಪದಿರತವ ಎಲವಾಲ್ಲಿ ಬವಾಡಿಗಪ ಕರವಾರನ ಮನೇಲಪ ಇರತವ ಸಹಿಗಳಳ ನನನ್ನು ಸಹಿಗಳಳ ಆಗಿರತತತ್ತುವಪ ಎರಂದರಪ ನಿಜ. ಸದರ ಸಹಿಗಳನತನ್ನು ಸವಾಕಕ್ಷದವಾರನತ ಗತರತತಿಸಿದದ್ದುರರಂದ ಅವುಗಳನತನ್ನು ನಿ.ಪ.8 ಎ ಇರಂದ ನಿ.ಪ.10 ಎ ಎರಂದತ ಗತರತತಿಸಲವಾಯಿತತ. ನಿ.ಪ.8 ರರಂದ 10 ಕರವಾರತ ಪತಪ್ರೊಗಳನತನ್ನು ನವಾನತ ಮವಾಡಿಕಪಕಳಳ್ಳುಲತ 1 ನಪನೇ ಪಪ್ರೊತಿವವಾದಿಯಿರಂದ ನನನ್ನು ಮನೇಲಪ ಯವಾವುದಪನೇ ಒತತ್ತುಡವವಾಗಲ ಮತತತ್ತು ಪಪ್ರೊಭವಾವವವಾಗಲನೇ ಉರಂಟವಾಗಿಲಲ್ಲಿ ಎನತನ್ನುವುದತ ನಿಜ. ಸದರ ಕರವಾರತ ಪತಪ್ರೊಗಳಳ ಆದ ಮನೇಲಪ 1 ಮತತತ್ತು 2 ನಪನೇ ಪಪ್ರೊತಿವವಾದಿಗಳ ಮನೇಲಪ ನನನ್ನು ವವಾದಿ ಕರಂಪನಿಯಿರಂದ ಯವಾವುದಪನೇ ತಪಪ್ಪ ತಿಳಳವಳಿಕಪಗಳಳ ಉರಂಟವಾಗಿರತವುದಿಲಲ್ಲಿ."44
OS.26777/2011
27. Plaintiffs in para No.8 of the plaint have stated that, the hoardings put up by them in the suit property are very vulnerable as the same can be damaged, destroyed or removed by the miscreants very easily. PW1 in the examination in chief in para No.8 has reiterated the said contention. Admittedly the plaintiffs have installed hoardings in the open space. Therefore as rightly contended by plaintiffs, the hoardings are very vulnerable as some can be destroyed or damaged by miscreants very easily. Plaintiffs have produced Ex.P.42 to Ex.P.46 photos. A perusal of the same would show that, the hoardings were damaged by miscreants. In the plaint, nowhere it is stated that, defendant No.3 interfered with plaintiffs business of advertisement in the suit property. On the other hand, in the plaint, it is specifically stated that, from 2003 defendants 1 & 2 have been causing interference and troubling plaintiffs for doing advertisement business in the suit property. Having 45 OS.26777/2011 regard to the fact that, the hoardings are very vulnerable and they can be destroyed easily, PW1 is very cautious while giving statements. He do not want enmity with defendants. During the course of cross examination by defendants 1 & 2, he has given evidence supporting their contention. But from the facts stated by PW1 in the examinationinchief and in the cross examination made by defendant No.3, it is clear that, he has given the above statement due to the fear that, defendants 1 & 2 or their supporters may cause damage to the advertisement hoardings in the suit property. From the averments of the plaint and from the facts stated by PW1, it is clear that, from 1990 after entering into Ex.P.4 Lease Deed with 3 rd defendant, plaintiffs have been doing advertisement business by installing hoardings in the suit property. When the plaintiffs have been carrying advertisement business peacefully since 1990, there was no necessity for them to enter into a fresh lease agreement 46 OS.26777/2011 with defendants 1 & 2. No tenant would wish to enter into lease agreements with 2 persons to pay separate rents. A careful perusal of the facts stated by PW1, it is clear that, in view of defendants 1 & 2 started troubling plaintiffs from carrying on the business of advertisement and having regard to the fact that, the hoardings installed in the suit property are vulnerable, plaintiffs for doing the said business smoothly have entered into Ex.P.8 to11 lease agreements with defendants 1 &
2.
28. Sec.116 of Evidence Act deals regarding estoppel by tenant. It reads thus:
"116. Estoppel of tenant; and of license of person in possession: No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the 47 OS.26777/2011 tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the license of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such license was given."
29. The learned counsel for the defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of "THIMMAPPA V/S. KOUSALYA - REPORTED IN ILR 1998 KAR 2664". In this judgment, it has been held as under:
"KARNATAKA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1961 (Karnataka Act No.22 of 1961)
- Section 21 - Relationship of landlord and tenant Tenants have no legal right to assert landlord is benami and not real owner."
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "JOGINDER SINGH V/S. SMT. JOGINDERO" - REPORTED IN 48 OS.26777/2011 AIR 1996 SC 1654, has held that, a tenant who has been let into the possession of a particular premises cannot deny his landlord's title. In the instant case, it is not the contention of the plaintiffs that, they terminated the tenancy with 3 rd defendant and removed the hoardings which they installed after entering into Ex.P.4 Lease Deed. Therefore plaintiffs who entered into Ex.P.4 Lease deed with 3rd defendant and paid rents up to 2003 are not allowed to deny the title of 3 rd defendant over tenanted property and enter into new lease agreements with 1st defendant. As per Sec.116 of Evidence Act, the plaintiffs are estopped from doing so. In view of the above, I hold that, Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.11 Lease Agreements which were made during the subsistence of tenancy between plaintiffs and defendant No.3 are not legal and from the statement of PW1, it is clear that, he entered into those agreements in view of defendants 1 & 2 start giving trouble for doing advertisement 49 OS.26777/2011 business. Defendants No.1 & 2 in the written statement filed on 02.11.2011 in para No.11 have stated that, there is no legal agreement in force between them and plaintiffs to create a relationship of landlord and tenant. When such is the case and in view of my afore said findings, I hold that, Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.11 lease deeds are having no value in the eye of law and they will not create a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs and defendant No.1 or his legal heirs i.e., defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2. When there is no legal contract of tenancy between plaintiffs and defendants 1 & 2, they cannot terminate the tenancy which is not in existence. Therefore letter dated:03.10.2011 marked at Ex.D.1 is null and void.
31. Defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "DEVASAHAYAM (DEAD) BY LRS. V/S. P.SAVITHRAMMA AND OTHERS - REPORTED IN (2005) 7 SCC 50 OS.26777/2011 653". I went through the above cited judgment. The said judgment is not applicable to facts of the case on hand.
32. PW1 on oath has stated that, as tenant, plaintiffs are in possession of suit property to the extent of 9 hoardings installed in the suit property as depicting in Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.24 photos. 3Rd defendant has admitted plaintiffs possession of hoardings installed in the suit property. Defendants 1 & 2 in the written statement filed on 02.11.2011 denied plaintiffs possession over the hoardings installed in the said property. Defendants 1 & 2 by contending that, they are in possession of suit property sought injunction against plaintiffs. But defendants 1(a) to (g) in their written statement admitting plaintiffs possession over 9 hoardings installed in the suit property sought counter claim for removal of those hoardings. Thus from the material on record, it is evident that, plaintiffs are in possession of 9 hoardings installed in the suit property. 51
OS.26777/2011 In view of my afore said findings, I answer Issue No.1 to 3 in the Affirmative and Additional Issue No.2 & 3 in the Negative.
33. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.4 TO 8: These issues are interrelated and interconnected to each other. Therefore to avoid repetition of facts and evidence and also for convenience, they are taken together for consideration.
34. While answering additional issue No.2 & 3, I have held that, there is no valid lease agreement between plaintiffs and defendants 1 & 2. It is not the contention of defendants 1(a) to (g) that, they have an independent valid lease agreement with plaintiffs. In view of my finding that, there is no valid lease deed/ agreement between plaintiffs and defendants 1 & 2 or defendants 1(a) to (g), the question of breach of conditions of rent or lease agreements by plaintiffs would not arise. Due to 52 OS.26777/2011 want of jural relation ship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs and defendants 1 & 2 or defendants 1(a) to (g), plaintiffs are not liable to pay arrears of rent to them. While answering issue No.1, I have held that, in view of there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs and defendants 1& 2, defendants 1 & 2 cannot terminate the tenancy which is not in existence. Hence the termination notice dated:03.10.2011 is illegal. In view of my said finding, defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 are neither entitled for the relief of ejectment nor damages. In view of the above, I answer Additional Issue No.4 to 8 in the Negative.
35. ISSUE NO.4 & 5: These 2 issues are in respect of title over the land in Sy.No.149 of K.G.Koramangala village. Therefore they are taken together for consideration. 53
OS.26777/2011
36. In the instant case, defendant No.1, defendants 1(a) to (g) & defendant No.2 contend that, they are the owners of the suit property i.e., land in Sy.No.149 measuring 3 acre 39 guntas. Defendant No.3 and defendants 3(a) to (g) contend that, they are the owners of land in Sy.No.149/2 of K.G.Koramangala village measuring 1 acre 37 guntas. A perusal of record would show that, after advent of Mysore Inam Abolition Act, 1st defendant filed application before the Special Deputy Commissioner U/Sec.10 of the said Act to register him as tenant. Without giving notice to 3 rd defendant and without mentioning the extent, the Special Deputy Commissioner has passed Ex.D.11 Order dated:19.07.1958 holding that, 1st defendant was the tenant of land in Sy.No.149 of K.G.Koramangala village. Questioning the legality of Ex.D.11 Order, 3rd defendant has filed Appeal No.1374/1969 before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. After hearing both the 54 OS.26777/2011 parties, Ex.D.36 Order dated:19.04.1971 was passed setting aside Ex.D.11 Order and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law. After conducting enquiry, the land tribunal has passed Ex.D.38 order dated:16.07.2015 granting occupancy right in favor of 3 rd defendant in respect of land in Sy.No.149/2 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas and rejecting the claim of 1st defendant for occupancy right in respect of land in Sy.No.149/1. Being aggrieved by Ex.D.38 order, 1 st defendant has filed Ex.D.16 W.P.No.35332/2015 and obtained Ex.D.17 stay order. The W.P.No.35332/2015 is still pending for consideration. Therefore the rival claim of 1st defendant and after his death defendants 1(a) to g) and defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 and after his death, defendants 3(a) to (g) in respect of grant of occupancy right over land in Sy.No.149 of K.G.Koramangala is now seized before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in W.P.35332/2015.
55
OS.26777/2011
37. Defendants 3(a) to (g) have produced Ex.D.32 sale deed dated:11.09.1961 executed by defendant No.1, defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 in favor of one B.V.Muniswamaiah Shetty in respect of 1 acre 32 guntas of land in Sy.No.149. In the said sale deed, the western boundary is shown as, the Land purchased by 3rd defendant under Ex.D.22 Sale deed. Thus at an undisputed period of time, defendant No.1 has admitted the possession of 3 rd defendant in a portion of land in Sy.No.149 of K.G.Koramangala village. A perusal of Ex.D.33 Judgment and Decree in Os.13/1968 would show that, defendant No.1(b) Suryanarayana Reddy, defendant No.1(e) Hema Reddy, defendant No.2 Srinivasa Reddy and Late. Balakrishna Reddy the husband of defendant No.1(a) Parvathamma have filed Os.13/1968 against defendant No.1, 3 and others interalia seeking the relief of declaration to 56 OS.26777/2011 declare that, Ex.D.22 Sale deed dated:26.05.1958 executed by Chinnaswamy Reddy in favor of 3rd defendant in respect of western portion of 1 acre 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.149, is not binding on them. After full dressed trial, the said suit was dismissed. Against the said judgment, plaintiffs of the said suit namely defendant No.1(b) Suryanarayana Reddy, defendant No.1(e) Hema Reddy, defendant No.2 Srinivasa Reddy and Late. Balakrishna Reddy the husband of defendant No.1(a) Parvathamma, have not filed appeal. Therefore I am of the view that, there is considerable force in the arguments of the learned counsel for defendant No.3(a) to (g) that, the findings in Ex.D.33 judgment is binding on defendant No.1(b) Suryanarayana Reddy, defendant No.1(e) Hema Reddy, defendant No.2 Srinivasa Reddy and Late. Balakrishna Reddy the husband of defendant No.1(a) Parvathamma. 57
OS.26777/2011
38. The learned counsel for defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "GOVINDAMMAL (DEAD) BY LRS & OTHERS V/S. VAIDIYANATHAN & OTHERS - REPORTED IN 2019 (1) KAR. L.R 63 (SC)" . In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has discussed regarding, when the dispute decided between codefendants would operate as resjudicata to decide the plaintiff's case. In this case, plaintiffs are not placing reliance on any of the judgments between defendants 1 and 3 to establish their case. Therefore the principle of resjudicata is not applicable to grant or refuse to grant the reliefs sought by plaintiffs. But the findings given in Ex.D.33 Judgment is binding on Lrs of 1st defendant and Lrs of 3rd defendant.
39. In Ex.D.33 judgment, it has been held that, Ex.D.22 Sale deed is valid and binding on the legal heirs of 1 st 58 OS.26777/2011 defendant K.B.Yellappa Reddy. Defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 who suffer from Decree in Os.13/1968 contend that, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide transfer of tenancy right under Ex.D.22 Sale deed. They contend that, the land tribunal has to decide the said dispute. The said contention of defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 is like the story of "Grapes are Sour". They filed the suit to declare that, Ex.D.22 Sale deed is not valid and binding on them. When the judgment went against them, they are contending that, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Whether the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to decide the legality of transferring of tenancy right under Ex.D.22 Sale deed and by virtue of the said sale deed, whether defendant No.3 and after his death his Lrs i.e., defendants 3(a) to (g) are entitled for the tenancy right which was already conferred in favor of 3 rd defendant under Ex.D.38 Order dated:16.07.2015 is now seized 59 OS.26777/2011 before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in W.P.No.35332/2015. But from the undisputed documents available on record, it is clear that, in Ex.D.32 sale deed dated:11.09.1961, 1st defendant admitted the possession of 3rd defendant in respect of 1 acre 35 guntas of land purchased by 3rd defendant under Ex.D.22 sale deed dated:26.05.1958; In view of defendant No.1(b) Suryanarayana Reddy, defendant No.1(e) Hema Reddy, defendant No.2 Srinivasa Reddy and Late. Balakrishna Reddy the husband of defendant No.1(a) Parvathamma have not challenged Ex.D.33 judgment, the findings given therein to the effect that, Ex.D.22 Sale deed is valid and it is binding on legal heirs of 1 st defendant Yellappa Reddy, is binding on defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2. Despite the said material is available on record for 2 reasons, this Court cannot give finding regarding title of defendants over the land in Sy.No.149. Firstly that, in the instant case 60 OS.26777/2011 nobody has sought the relief of declaration over the said land. Plaintiffs are seeking the relief of injunction by contending that, as tenants they are in possession and enjoyment of a portion of land in Sy.No.149, where 9 hoardings are installed. A relief of declaration sought by plaintiffs to declare that, Ex.D.1 Termination notice dated:03.10.2011 is not binding on them is nothing to do with the title over land in Sy.No.149. Defendants 1 & 2 have sought the relief of injunction and after the death of 1st defendant, his legal heirs namely defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 sought the relief of ejectment by contending that, plaintiffs are in possession of suit property as tenant and the tenancy was terminated. Therefore to grant or refuse those reliefs, the Court has to decide the possession over the suit property, jural relationship of landlord and tenant and termination of tenancy. Therefore having regard to the reliefs sought, there is no necessity for this Court to give finding on 61 OS.26777/2011 title over the property to decree or dismiss the suits and counter claims. Secondly that, after the advent of Mysore Inam Abolition Act, defendants are claiming tenancy right over the land in Sy.No.149. Admittedly Civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the tenancy dispute and the said dispute is now seized before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.35332/2015. For the above reasons, I hold that, Issue No.4 & 5 regarding title over the suit property would not arise for consideration and this court has no jurisdiction to give finding on those issues, in view of pendency of W.P.No.35332/2015.
40. The counsel for defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of "UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE V/S. RAJAIAH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS - REPORTED IN AIR 2018 SC 1539". I went through the above cited judgment. It is 62 OS.26777/2011 in respect of grant of occupancy right. This Court has no jurisdiction to decide the rival claim of Lrs of defendants 1 and 3 about the occupancy right over the suit property. Therefore the above cited judgment is not relevant before this Court. In view of the above, I hold that, Issue No.4 & 5 DO NOT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION.
41. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1: Plaintiffs contend that, the relief of ejectment sought by defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 is barred by law of limitation. Defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 are claiming the relief of ejectment by contending that the tenancy of plaintiffs was terminated by issuing Ex.D.1 notice dated:03.10.2011 by stating that, the tenancy would stand terminated from the date of service of said notice. The said notice was served to plaintiffs on 05.10.2011. 63
OS.26777/2011 Therefore, according to the defendants, the tenancy of plaintiffs was terminated with effect from 5.10.2011.
42. While answering Issue No.1 to 3 and addl. Issue No.2 and 3, I have held that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs and defendants 1 and
2. Therefore, the question defendants 1 and 2 terminating the tenancy of plaintiffs which is not in existence would not arise. In view of my said findings answering issue regarding limitation is not of much significance. Nevertheless in view of plaintiffs have raised the said contention and the issue is framed, it has to be answered.
43. Article 67 of Limitation Act reads regarding limitation to file suit by landlord against tenant for recovery of possession of tenanted premises. As per the said article, the limitation to file a suit for possession or ejectment is 12 years 64 OS.26777/2011 from the date of termination of tenancy. Defendant No.1 (a) to
(g) and 2nd defendant contend that, tenancy of plaintiffs was terminated with effect from 15.10.2011. Defendant No.1 (a) to
(g) and 2nd defendant sought counter claim on 1.10.2016. Thus, the relief of ejectment sought within 12 years is in time. Hence, the contention of plaintiffs that relief of ejectment is barred by limitation is not sustainable. In view of the above, I answer the Addl. Issue No.1 in NEGATIVE.
44. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.10 AND 11: These 2 issues are interrelated and interconnected to each other. Therefore to avoid repetition of facts and evidence and also for convenience, they are taken together for consideration.
45. A perusal of record would show that defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement on 02.11.2011. In para No.11 of written statement, they contend that, the agreements upon 65 OS.26777/2011 which the plaintiffs are relying to prove tenancy with them (defendants 1 and 2) have no legal sanctity in the eye of law and they cannot be looked into for any purpose. Therefore, there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between them and plaintiffs. In the said written statement, defendants 1 and 2 by contending that, they are in possession of suit property sought the relief of injunction by way of counter claim restraining the plaintiffs from entering into the suit property putting advertisement hoardings or play cards therein. Contrary to the said contention, after the death of 1 st defendant, defendant No.1(a) to (g) by appointing 2nd defendant as attorney holder have filed written statement on 01.10.2016 by contending that, plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit property as tenants of defendants 1 and 2 under Ex.P.8 lease agreement dated:12.06.2008. The said tenancy was terminated by issuing Ex.D.1 notice dated:03.10.2011. Thus, as rightly 66 OS.26777/2011 contended by plaintiffs the contention taken by defendant No.1(a) to (g) and 2nd defendant in the written statement dated:01.10.2016 are contrary and mutually destructive to the contentions taken by defendants 1 and 2 in the written statement dated:02.11.2011.
46. Defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "VINOD KUMAR ARORA V/S. SMT.SURJIT KAUR - reported in 1987 SC 2179". In this case, it is held as under:
"(B) Civil P.C.(5 of 1908), O.6 R.2 - Variance between pleadings and proof - Effect.
The pleadings of the parties form the foundation of their case and it is not open to them to give up the case set out in the pleadings and propound a new and different case."
67
OS.26777/2011
47. When defendants 1 and 2 sought the relief of injunction by contending that they are in possession of suit property, after the death of first defendant, defendants 1(a) to
(g) and defendant No.2 cannot seek the relief of ejectment by contending that the defendants 1 and 2 inducted plaintiffs in possession of suit property as tenants. Therefore, the relief of injunction sought by defendants 1 and 2 and relief of ejectment sought by defendant No.1 (a) to (g) and 2 nd defendant are contradictory and mutually destructive. The said two reliefs cannot be claimed simultaneously. In view of the above, I hold that, having regard to the contention taken by defendants 1 & 2, defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 cannot claim the relief of ejectment. In view of the above, I answer Additional Issue No.10 and 11 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
68
OS.26777/2011
48. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.12: Plaintiffs contend that, the relief of ejectment and damages sought by defendant No.1(a) to (g) and 2nd defendant are not properly valued and the court fee paid is insufficient. A perusal of record would show that defendant No.1(a) to (g) and 2nd defendant valued the relief of ejectment U/Sec.41 of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act (KCF&SV Act) and on the basis of annual rent, court fee of Rs.1,73,017/ was paid. Therefore, the valuation made for the relief of ejectment is proper and the court fee paid is sufficient. Defendant No.1 (a) to (g) and 2nd defendant have sought the damages of Rs.20,00,000/ per annum from the date of counter claim till the plaintiffs handing over the vacant possession of leased property. The damages is not yet determined. As per Sec.42(3) of KCF & SV Act, the court fee on damages/ mesne profits is to be paid while filing execution petition after determination of damages/ mesne profits. 69
OS.26777/2011 Therefore, I am of the view that, the valuation made and court fee paid by defendant No.1 (a) to (g) and 2nd defendant on the relief of ejectment and damages is proper, correct and sufficient. Accordingly, I answer Addl. Issue No.12 in the NEGATIVE.
49. ISSUE NO.6: In the instant case, it is specific contention of plaintiffs that, defendants 1 and 2 caused interference with their business of advertisement by putting hoardings in the suit property. In Ex.P.20 Letter dated:13.10.2011 addressed by 2nd plaintiff in his capacity as Managing Director of first plaintiffcompany has stated that since 2003, defendants 1 and 2 have been interfering and causing obstructions in doing hoarding advertisement business in the suit property. In para14 of the plaint, plaintiffs have stated that, 2nd defendant threatened their security persons and 70 OS.26777/2011 made attempt to disconnect electricity supply to the hardings. In this regard, letter dated: 15.9.2011 was issued to 2 nd defendant. Plaintiffs have produced copy of said letter along with plaint, but, it is not marked as exhibit. Ex.P 27 is the letter dated: 25.11.2011. A perusal of same would show that 2 nd plaintiff (PW.1) has given complaint to the police against 2 nd defendant stating that he and his men caused damages to hoardings installed in the suit property. From the material available on record would show that despite the first defendant in Ex.P.37 application filed on 15.6.2007 has admitted that, 3 rd defendant has given a portion of suit property on lease to plaintiffs to put up hardings during the subsistence of tenancy he and his son the 2nd defendant forced the plaintiffs to enter into the Ex.P.8 lease deed dated:12.6.2008. Defendants 1 and 2 have filed written statement denying the plaintiffs possession in the suit property and sought the relief of injunction against 71 OS.26777/2011 them. Thus, from the very contention and conduct of defendants 1 and 2, I am of the view that, there is no reason to disbelieve the contention of plaintiffs that, defendants 1 & 2 interfered with their hoardings advertisement business in the suit property.
50. Learned counsel for defendant No.1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 has strenuously contended that, PW1 in the cross examination at page No.39 has stated that, 1st defendant Yellappa Reddy during his life time never threatened him or his clients. Plaintiffs have not produced the complaint alleged to have been given by PW1 against defendants 1 & 2 before or after filing of the instant suit. Further PW1 in the cross examination has stated that, he do not know who caused damage to the hoardings installed in the suit property. Thus from the statements of PW1, it is clear that, defendants 1 & 2 72 OS.26777/2011 never interfered with hoardings advertisement business of plaintiffs.
51. As I have already stated, a perusal of statements of PW1 would show that, during the course of cross examination by defendants 1 & 2, he given statements supporting their contention. Sometimes PW1 has given statements against to his own pleadings and documents. During the course of cross examination by defendant No.3, he has given evidence as per his pleadings and documents on record. As already stated, PW1 has given evidence very cautiously and he has not given any statement which gives room for enmity with defendants 1 & 2, for the reason that, the hoardings installed by him in the suit property are very vulnerable and they can be damaged or destroyed very easily. Plaintiffs in the plaint have made it very clear that, it is defendants 1 & 2, who interfered with their 73 OS.26777/2011 hoarding advertisement business. If virtually as elicited in the cross examination of PW1 that, defendants 1 & 2 have never caused interference with hoarding advertisement business of plaintiffs and they also not caused damage to the hoardings, then absolutely there was no necessity for the plaintiffs to file the instant suit giving room for defendants 1 & 2 to seek counter claims claiming alternative reliefs. Therefore I am of the view that, a careful and threadbare valuation of pleadings and evidence on record and the contradictory contentions raised by defendants 1 & 2 and the legal heirs of 1 st defendant, it is evident that, defendants 1 & 2, particularly defendant No.2 interfered with plaintiffs hoarding advertisement business in the suit property.
52. In the plaint or PW1 in the evidence has nowhere stated that, 3rd defendant or his legal heirs i.e., defendants 3(a) 74 OS.26777/2011 to (g) ever interfered with their hoarding advertisement business in the suit property. Therefore there is zero evidence to prove that, 3rd defendant or defendants 3(a) to (g) ever interfered with plaintiffs hoarding advertisement business in the suit property. In view of the above, I answer Issue No.6 PARTLY IN AFFIRMATIVE.
53. ISSUE NO.7: While answering Issue No.1 to 3 and Addl. Issue No.2 & 3, I have held that, there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs and defendants 1 & 2 or defendants 1(a) to (g). When there is no tenancy, the question of defendants 1 & 2 terminating the tenancy would not arise. Therefore the letter dated:03.10.2011 marked at Ex.D.1 is null and void. In view of my said findings, plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration. 75
OS.26777/2011
54. Plaintiffs have sought the relief of perpetual prohibitory injunction against all the defendants. While answering Issue No.2, I have held that, plaintiffs proved their possession over 9 hoardings installed in the suit property. While answering Issue No.6, I have held that, plaintiffs proved the interference by defendants 1 & 2 with their hoarding advertisement business in the suit property. From the contentions taken by defendants 1 & 2 would show that, in one breath, they are seeking the relief of injunction restraining plaintiffs from entering into the suit property to do hoarding advertisement business. In another breath, they contend that, plaintiffs are the tenants under them, their tenancy is terminated and therefore they are to be vacated. Having regard to the contentions taken by them and the evidence available on record, it is clear that, defendants No.1 (a) to (g) and defendant No.2 interfered and defendant have been interfering 76 OS.26777/2011 with plaintiffs hoarding advertisement business in the suit property. When such is the case, it would be just and necessary to grant the relief of injunction in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 in respect of 9 hoardings installed in the suit property. In view of my finding on Issue No.6 that, plaintiffs neither pleaded nor proved that, defendant No.3 or defendants 3(a) to (g) interfered with their possession and enjoyment of 9 hoardings installed in the suit property, they are entitled for the relief of injunction against defendants 3(a) to (g). Plaintiffs sought the relief of injunction restraining defendants from giving the suit property to 3 rd person for doing hoarding advertisement business. Tenant cannot restrain the landlord from giving his property on lease to others. Therefore plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of injunction restraining defendants from giving the suit property to 3rd persons for doing hoarding advertisement business. In 77 OS.26777/2011 view of the above, I answer Issue No.7 PARTLY IN AFFIRMATIVE.
55. ISSUE NO.8: Defendants 1 & 2 sought the relief of injunction restraining plaintiffs from entering into the suit property for doing hoarding advertisement business. Defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 in one breath contend that, plaintiffs by taking legal opinion entered into Ex.P.8 Lease Agreement dated:12.06.2008 and installed hoardings in the suit property and after termination of lease/ license period Ex.P.9 lease agreement dated:12.05.2009; Ex.P.10 Lease agreement dated:12.05.2010 and Ex.P.11 Lease Agreement dated:14.06.2011 were made. Placing reliance on those documents, defendants 1(a) to (g) contend that, plaintiffs as their tenants are in possession and enjoyment of 9 hoardings installed in the suit property. In another breath they contend 78 OS.26777/2011 that, the lease agreement upon which the plaintiffs are relying to establish the jural relationship of landlord and tenant are illegal and they are having no legal sanctity. Defendants 1(a) to
(g) contend that, Ex.P.8 was made on insufficient stamp paper. If really plaintiffs would have made Ex.P.8 Lease agreement by taking legal opinion, they could have made it on the requisite stamp paper. It is settled law that, while marking an unstamped document, objection is to be raised. If a document is marked without any objection, it cannot be questioned at the later stage. In the instant case, while marking Ex.P.8 lease agreement, defendants have not raised objection. Now they cannot raise objection regarding its legality on the court of nonpayment of requisite stamp duty. Thus from the contentions and the points urged in the written arguments it is clear that, defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 are raising mutually contradictory contentions. Defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant 79 OS.26777/2011 No.2 by seeking the relief of ejectment, admitted plaintiffs possession over 9 hoardings installed in the suit property i.e., land in Sy.No.149 of K.G.Koramangala village. When such is the case, they are not entitled for the relief of injunction restraining plaintiffs from entering into the said land to do hoarding advertisement business. In view of the above, I answer Issue No.8 in the NEGATIVE.
56. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.9: In view of the rival claim of 1st defendant and defendant No.3 in respect of occupancy right over the land in Sy.No.149, plaintiffs stopped paying of rents. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA.No.2576/2012 C/w. MFA.Nos.5205/2012, 3627/2012, 3626/2012, 3625/2012 & 2575/2012 (CPC) has directed the plaintiffs to deposit the rents in the Court. As per the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, plaintiffs have deposited 80 OS.26777/2011 rents. Defendants 1 & 3 are claiming that, they are entitled for the rents deposited by plaintiffs. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above appeals has held that, the successful party before the Land Tribunal and the Civil court would be entitled to withdraw the rents deposited by plaintiffs with interest. In view of my finding that, there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs and defendants 1(a) to (g) & defendant No.2 and the order of land Tribunal also went against them, they are not entitled for withdrawal of rents deposited by plaintiffs.
57. While answering Issue No.1 to 3 and Additional Issue No.2 & 3, I have held that, plaintiffs were inducted into the suit property as tenants by 3rd defendant. The jural relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs and defendant No.3 and after his death, defendants 3(a) to (g) was not terminated. During the pendency of the suit, the Land 81 OS.26777/2011 Tribunal has passed Ex.D.38 Order dated:16.07.2015 confirming occupancy right of land in Sy.No.149/2 in favor of 3rd defendant. Thus, the order of land tribunal has also went in favor of 3rd defendant. Against Ex.D.38 order, writ petitions were filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the same are pending for consideration. When such is the case, in view of my finding that, plaintiffs were inducted into the suit property as tenants of 3rd defendant and confirmation of occupancy right of land upon which hoardings were installed in favor of 3rd defendant under Ex.D.38 order dated:16.07.2015, the Lrs of defendant No.3 i.e., defendants 3(a) to (g) are entitled for withdrawal of rents deposited with interest. In view of writ petitions filed challenging Ex.D.38 Order passed by land tribunal confirming the occupancy right of land in Sy.No.149/2 in favor of 3rd defendant are pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, I am of the view that while 82 OS.26777/2011 releasing the deposited rent amount in favor of defendants 3(a) to (g) it would be just and necessary to take security from them for redepositing the amount with interest, if they fail in W.P.No.35332/2015 or in appeal by the aggrieved party/ies against this judgment, direction is given to deposit the amount. In view of the above, I answer Additional Issue No.9 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
58. ISSUE NO.9: In view of my reasons and findings on afore said issues, I pass the following:
ORDER Plaintiffs suit is partly decreed with costs to be paid by defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2.
Defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 are restrained from interfering with plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of 9 hoardings existing in the suit property and/ or causing damages to the said hoardings.83
OS.26777/2011 The counter claim of defendants 1 & 2 and defendants 1(a) to (g) and defendant No.2 are dismissed.
The suit against defendants 3(a) & (g) is dismissed with costs.
The rents deposited by plaintiffs be released in favor of defendants 3(a) to (g) by taking security from them that, in appeal by the aggrieved party/ies or in W.P.35332/2015, if they fail and the court directs to deposit the rent amount, they shall deposit the same with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of release till the date of deposit.
****** (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of February 2019) (MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.) C/C. IV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court, Bengaluru. (CCH - 21) 84 OS.26777/2011 ANNEXURES: LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW1 M.K.KURIAKOSE LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 Plaint in OS.7557/2008
Ex.P.2 Valuation Slip in OS.7557/2008
Ex.P.3 Order sheet in OS.7557/2008
Ex.P.4 Lease Deed dated:06.12.1990
Ex.P.5 to 7 Receipts
Ex.P.8 Lease Agreement dated:12.06.2008
Ex.P.9 Lease Agreement dated:12.05.2009
Ex.P.10 Renewal Deed of Lease Agreement
dated:12.05.2010
Ex.P.11 Lease Agreement dated:14.06.2011
Ex.P.12 Letter dated:17.06.2008
Ex.P.13 Letter dated:15.09.2011
Ex.P.14 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.15 Letter dated:24.09.2011
Ex.P.16 Letter dated:26.09.2011
Ex.P.17 Postal acknowledgment
85
OS.26777/2011
Ex.P.18 Letter dated:11.10.2011
Ex.P.19 Reply dated:19.09.2011
Ex.P.20 Letter dated:13.10.2011
Ex.P.21 to 24 Photographs
Ex.P.25 CD
Ex.P.26 Letter dated:17.08.2011
Ex.P.27 Letter dated:25.10.2011
Ex.P.28 Certified Copy of FIR
Ex.P.29 Tax paid details up to 2016
Ex.P.30 Details of rent deposited in the Court
Ex.P.31 to 34 Photographs
Ex.P.35 CD
Ex.P.36 Affidavit
Ex.P.37 Complaint dated:19.10.2011
Ex.P.38 Acknowledgment given by Audugodi police
station
Ex.P.39 Certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act
Ex.P.40 & 41 Copy of Emails
Ex.P.42 to 46 photographs
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE
DEFENDANTS:
DW1 SRINIVASA REDDY
86
OS.26777/2011
DW2 V.L. VIDYA SHANKAR
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 Termination notice dated:03.10.2011
Ex.D.2 Notice
Ex.D.3 Letter dated:28.07.2008
Ex.D.4 Letter dated:17.10.2008
Ex.D.5 Letter dated:06.08.2011
Ex.D.6 Complaint dated:07.10.2011
Ex.D.7 Acknowledgment given by Adugodi Police station
Ex.D.8 NOC for Power connection dated:03.01.2012
Ex.D.9 NOC for Power connection dated:11.01.2012
Ex.D.10 Letter dated:26.12.2011
Ex.D.11 Certified copy of order dated:19.07.1958 obtained
under RTI
Ex.D.12 to 15 Certified copy of Registers obtained under RTI Ex.D.16 W.P.35332/2015 Ex.D.17 Order sheet in W.P.31125, 31126 & 31440/2015 Ex.D.18 Order passed in W.P.31125, 31126 & 31440/2015 Ex.D.19 Judgment in W.A.42034204 & 4290/2015 Ex.D.20 Release deed dated:26.09.1956 87 OS.26777/2011 Ex.D.21 Sketch Ex.D.22 Sale deed dated:26.05.1958 Ex.D.23 - 27 Index of land Ex.D.28 & 29 RTC extracts Ex.D.30 Gazette Notification dated:12.10.1952 Ex.D.31 Order dated:25.07.1966 Ex.D.32 Sale deed dated:11.09.1961 Ex.D.33 Judgment in Os.13/1968 Ex.D.34 Written statement in Os.508/1983 Ex.D.35 Judgment dated:21.09.1988 Ex.D.36 Order dated:19.04.1971 Ex.D.37 & 38 Certified copies of I.A.s Ex.D.39 Judgment in C.C.24690/2015 Ex.D.40 Judgment in C.C.24686/2015 Ex.D.41 Copy of complaint Ex.D.42 Order sheet in Cr.No.206/2014 Ex.D.43 FIR in Cr.No.206/2014 (MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.) C/C. IV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court, Bengaluru. (CCH - 21)