A Ravishankar Shetty vs Suresh Chadaga P S on 27 February, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

A Ravishankar Shetty vs Suresh Chadaga P S on 27 February, 2009

Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 (NOC) 2374 (KAR.), 2009 (4) AIR KANT HCR 201, 2009 A I H C 2419, (2009) 4 KCCR 2922

Bench: Manjula Chellur

 

\
.mM¢

1w wag HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE m
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY 09 FEBRUARY é0C9Kj% f.

PRESENT Mm
THE HON'BLE MRSJUSTICE MANJULA'CHEL:UR 3wj%3
THE HON'BLE MR.JusTIcE K,N KEsHAvANARAYANAs

as
3
§
3
§
§
3
Q
§
%
$2
§'*
%
§
§
2.;
:
§
3
§
Q
E
%
§

    

R.F.A.No. 2563:2097

BETWEEN

1. A RAVISHANKAR SHETTY 4' __V v
s/0 A BELAKRISHNA SHE$TY  "W"
A633 ABOUT 49 YEARS _f" '
R/AT 'KAPELA', no 221"
ﬂ"wﬂmgwm@mMmR""
BANGALoREe560.032._--

2 B N UMESH *V A A
s/0 A NARYANA ', .
ASED,A8OUT_5O YEARS
,_ .R%A,No,54,'""?MAIN ROAD
 «,GANAGANAGAR
» BAN@ALQag~560 G32 ... REPELLENTS

(B§ éfi §fé;égETHAN & H%ASAD HEGBE K; ADVs.,)

 <_ AND :

 - 1 "sUREsH CHADEGA P s
" g 3/0 LATE 9.v:suBBARAQ
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

""'*""" '"*"W,.-''''''.,'""' ""5" mmmwmezmmm wzwm %WME'm W?" KAWKWWXMWW HEQW QKEKEW? *§§i5="'9:"

RAMESH RAG P
8/0 LATE P.V}SUBBARAG

..W. W u«...m mwmwh
('Q

BOTH ARE RE$§D1NG Am
NO.698, eﬁigﬁcsx, RAJAJINAGAR

-C'

BANGALORE~56O O20 ﬁ9//



m.w2w.'>"*_:.«»=<s=2z~ Maw nxmwmmmrmmrwmwwa mm!be'n'Iﬁ!A' mwwrwmw W! avmmwmmswanmw E"ﬂ¥U$H2""ﬂ mwW%Wii WBW" iNJ'<%€%$WM%§:iM£'%.ﬂ"'§ %'"?¥§'§..'.V5S'"€'I  Ky,'-9'E'" &"§,.z,"'*'9;;i'@-\¢'%¥«%§E.>111%A§'§~.¢€5r>% MEMVM Q.,,,,%,,

wwwwaxw

%

:2:

3 9 JAGADISH cx~mnA&A
Sm LATE E'.V.SUBB.Z1 mo
IVA 1~ro.59!A, -4" BLOCK
naaaazzmsan
BANGALORE-550 om

ray 5:: saaumnnmsama msanm a K 
ADVa., FCR C/R1 as 112  
Sri GIRISH s mama, zmm, am.  j; '
DATE OF RESERVE: 21.2.2809 * ' '
DATE: OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.2.2009

REA FILED we: 95 03 cm:   
JIIZJGEMII-3N"I' Arm DEGREE DATED oe.o9.2n;n:a?_V PASSED" 
m 0 S.N<3.H298/2003. on  FILE"'--Df-   
ADDLCITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS_':¢JUI?IE;.VEAi':I3_%%L_0RE
CITY, ccH.No.3,. nﬁciamma  ::at::'::..j»._FoR

THIS APPEAL  _° B$Ei§  '31r:----~5 AND
RESERVED THIS  ~ J. ,

  m     

*1*1;.f;.s«v agapéaz, _'fi3.e}:1 {mums Section 95 of we
againﬁm the Judgment and Decree

 by the XV Aclditianal
 '~:.2'.i1;r;,*_._~1'S-assi:3r:::3 Judge, Bangalcsre in
.._ _fj;',;'3f".-.S'.N<V:» .8ﬁ'§---M2901 damreaing the maid auit filed
  mssparudants ls?-o.1 and 2 herein and

VT Iiiira-siting the appellanta No.1 and 2 1:0 vacate

 deliver the vacant possassi-an zzzf the suit

Vschedule premises 1:0 the plaintiffs and 5.13::

. RESPGNDENTS  %' %' V



"""""VMV"w'MWMWMWWM"wwwwwwmawwmmmwmmﬁﬁwwwwkwwﬁfwﬁﬁﬁwwwﬁﬁﬂ%ﬁ@HCﬁUﬁ?@FKﬁWWWW%ﬁ?W@W@

diracting the defendants to jointly and

severally ts pay a sum of Rs.¢1,$§3'g:.:(}{?f33r'"

tawaxrds the arrears of rent and 

damages at the rate of 

the data of the suit: t3;'3.l:.,_4:i:_¢l":i,*;r'é:,.t':';g*:"v:sﬁ:: 3;.1§§a

vacant pasaaassion of schaduia 'pramTﬁ.v:é§ws , ' té; 

plaintiffa.

2. The   2 herein
33* the'     2; while
  2.  '~";V3':'u;:'VV defendants 139.1
and .2 "b'el.c-'gar. Respondent l.~Io.3-

P. Ja§'»_a.di sh brother of plaintiffs N-::a.1 and é'¢;hs.§é;quently iraplaadad as .¥5§o.3";"'~...__?1'he parties herein are £€.t':a3'.*§_*'e<:I_ 'vJ,iie3:ve.i;':1after with reference to their »..__VV.';:anki;:;§' iné t§1*;a3V..T1'€ic:ux:t balm. . 3. '"}.-'£1: plaintiffs No.1 and 2 filed the suit in the Court belch: seeking VT éfizdgfident and Becree against: the Defendants and 2 directing them ta vacate and Vdeliveu: the vacant posaeasion sf the suit zsczimdule premises by the defendants became unauthorized and illegal. Therefore, tvk;e"_s#r "§re liable to pay 1:219 damagaa for occupation of the achadule ., 1.10.2901. With the am-.s;._ra plaint iris saught tax' ,_f:he ' .;§"1ie:£f'3"V'3 1 L, above .

5. Upcm s¢av.£x'¢":;t'__::'ra"' gunmans, the defendants__ Court below and filati ::"$»':..1:.t'%sV1r:ezxt, interalia amuse cf acstian fer periotd of lease was 3.0 yeazs met yet expired.

iﬁaauggh status as tenant in '_V.§1:-emises, they disputed the ' =.._{.v:::,~:J.:ez.'.9t;:1é.-'ﬁe the measurements of the 'p.zc;ia2é;1:i.V3es as stated. in the sschadnla ta 'fhesy diaputad the avements that Egaemna tenant of the schedule premises 1.4.2000, hawever, they adzuittad the finzzxhly rent of premiaw as 325.25, DOG1'-~. They Wm" wvwwma wow esWwwv»m%M*'mwN enwaﬁﬁi' "="""-""'9_1-°-*'s*%.».~ was ¥wmw&%mwwgwm urmvww wmwwmw ws awwmmwmamamm a'amwﬁ'a %w'wmE Wuﬁ'$" wwwmawwmaéhmnwm E"'¥M.:M""% W~MwN..¢fa&1HE WW' #'w'ﬂ#%W'WMn&»M%..M. 'a?'"M¥emWf'"§ KM. dispizteﬁ the ccrrectnaass 9f the avarmants maﬁ vwwwivwmmzmewmw um 'WW"'°WzmW€ W9 7HMF"h%WWW"-='W%mWv'*& mlnwnw wwwwuun wan rm:a'1nwsw:ruwm~'mtvw"u~ wesaiwuovlm wwwwmm Wm ea:ve.::r"vu'ez.mva.w"m«aaw*imM»,ar"ve. mnwwam wwwnxss wwvn f$";x§""\LMxLf"#r?f"\h&3£3"'&EV>4£""W> Mwavm wMm_ Additional issuer-

Tha vwaluatien slip whether is prcrpezr?

8. Baring the trial; the plaintiff examined himself af:s""' m--1«'_"

marked Ex 91 to 913. 9n the 5¢£he: %hana{ff % defendants 1 and 2 axaznin:é«'d';-.:vL::i:ham$él1f9J5VAV 1 and 2 and got marked Ex_31 to Q?. fhevfirat defendant thmzgh. rileé in lieu af 1axaaI:inatit3r;§i§:1V*f-¢hi§}I%Vf he was mt zsuba-a<;tia'a:;€g_t3:};"?V'.,__ further ncr subj eetagdv"kc.T§:f§;§3;é.#9st*ﬁ;§§t3iﬁ$~.t'i'erx'1 Therefore hi evidesnce ' veé:$_a conaidazaticn.

After hgth A'2:3:s:.ra:..."~7s:i.c:'.as, the: Court balaw t_i:;%2.E'._j{§u;1gmeui£t~.. ____ Eeczee under appeal &n3wéi'ed"v._i'5$'u}}e! ---.1~Ica.1 and additional issue in issue Noa.2 'cc: 5 in the 4' Cansaquantly, {taunt balm-1 deemed of the plaintiffta and dixeszsted the "v.,,,,__:<i§tAén§1§§nta 1 and 2 to quit and deliver the pessaaaian (pf the suit aczhedale V' premiaen to the plaintiffs within 90 days from the date 6f the Judgment and 3134:: tax pay Nwnm 'hw'Wul"Ws-at-ititaa WW3 aHk»lﬂ'"\'sﬂ"A£i'%ﬂl"'EL566!'}1%'w$""3' :z'wr;'z».«.e~.'~n mwwmw we 2:wmnmuwn"namMm\ar'm nwwnwum wwwuuwmi wt '&'V».¢?"'%llI"0»3&'&z¥3"'%s%>£?"""\Hi'héﬁ""U. armwiw wWMw'm we Lmmrmmzvmmiamm ::"::';'.-»>,,,;s'.*:"*a wk,,»'§\§':,::%w MM" m§>Mﬁ€eWW&iéM!ﬂ&% §"'&§%.:s:n;;"§ gag"

'Q The plaintiffs have opposed these agplicaticns.

12. we have heard the 1eaIned{rCo#§§élﬂ agpaaring an both the 5ids5,~W*-

13. Szi Ravi Varga T$hmar" S§n£9£A Advaaate appeaxingK aw f@rE ; 1} the dQfGﬂﬁHt5/app9ll&nt$'r.c%m#éia%ﬁm tﬁ%£ the defendants hay: maﬁa. §u§ @%ufﬁi#iéﬁt grounds for grant g{ §$¥mi%$£g§ ﬁg Qﬁ&§%a additienal documenxa €an$ {%3$¢4wé§$ adﬁ§£iona1 documenta axe waxy mﬁéhbmgﬁariﬁl fox prqpar adjudication of the dispuﬁe in§§i?#&{iﬁ the appeal and they are jusﬁ"and ﬁeﬁgséaiy for the prqpar decision aim th§ &p§§ai; He fﬁﬁther contended that while C¢ﬁ3iﬁ§§iﬁ§a[t§Q gppliaatiana for additions; j §videﬁme,gt§$ACaurt should mat adapt hyper» u% Eé§hni§ai* and rigid approach. HE further that the evidencze placed by was .§§ﬁe$danta particularly tha receipt dated " ié'.3.2001-Ex 13*: clearly establishes that the V defendanta have paid rents upte Eebruaxy 2001 maintainahle. He further contended that the notice-Ex P1 in supposed 1:0 have haven §ér.:fit on behalf at' all the three aw-awnars, reply submitted by defemiant intarragataxrias delivered I__ta tiié». helw, he has staize-.¢ r'$.%:at:, *, authorised the plaintiff'aR ':§ :'. s7s1£§=z"V':z1¢:'»1i,:i<:e, an sushi the ngti%@ .'& 'ﬁg? E* #1, is an unauthcu:ised_ one gﬁfendant his. 3 is '_'Va:;..**:-V ;si":,<."":i.«':x. not a. valid notice . t';::&:n§:;;eVf1ded that thcaugh filed ma-23 in the C<>u3:t: amenxi the written statgsmsagt 'V m'A._i:'h to defandant No.3 ? a;e§§iviﬁgmammun£W§f Ra.2,00,000l* on 29.7.2007 rents camancing tram 1.8.200'?

nu1uer'IIsnaVar*suar"1!i\Iua""is. aauww wwwma w-m xwmnawmamnmm rewwmte mwwwm Mm" MMWWMMWLKM. WEWW mwwwwa M35" ¥'<«,.5%'3;€£€??'%'i;Wx§.Mﬁ'E..%% Wiﬁﬁﬁ %.}5 tc;_"'s:§§'$titir:ue the lease of the schedzzle in favtauzr of ciefendanta 1 and 2, the 'uacr"mt='wa[»<vnm wru . cg;':%z'2--,:~*.f below hag arroneausly ans: on untenable

-gxiounsis, rejected the aaid application and the v:"\wrvw:u card-ax: rejecting the said application is aim:

zzhallenged in thia ayyeal. // %*"M'¢¥g¥(§*'éé§'53i§;ﬂJ@'€'.Ra% E'''£§%;.",ﬂW %% mom w --wwwuua-wuvo wu Iawo1uusMs.wo~'~:n » \mnmzo~f§a1«<wnIIi "WWII uwwwmwrmawmmmvm mawwmm wwwma will uuwmawmawwawm ai"'Eﬁ'&ﬁ'8"'Tﬁ °%m'<:m9%n.F§".mD( WM?" ¥<."%ﬂ"%E"<'sDSV3§"'1$aﬁ5$'"'%.!§'§2.rK""€x F§WEVr»$V'T§ '§.m'§\J%q§§%:§ MW?"

grant of permission to: lead additinnal evidenae or to produce additional dccgﬁtanta and the doctmzanta seught ta be p.1*:_::::=x'::'£u'..-.v:"'.&.«:.'1_L:V'1'e:;*,,V:i4':i:a not admissible in evidence and t.hei'$§6!f§9:«. applieatians are liable t<f:__ bq..A mj'a»c:tAgd;'--..»,,,__ ..,_T

15. In the 3.ig m-%j%'-V..V%%of%"'¢;hg_ ' gm'-A follenwing paints ,a,;iae,-f~:.ai;"-c:ét1t:; coi3L$iaiev'i:ation:*

1. Whejthez: and 2 have grounds for the additianal 'A _s_m1ght in IA-I/2007 and 2 . Wigsethgr belcw was ":L§.':v"'.=%§§§_aating IA-23 and the dafendants 1 2 . amand the msittem .V 5 _3":;:.a;=.1':~$3L=;1:;!e1V1L.*i'£=? the suit filed fer ejecztxnexatr by two :31' the three an-owners éif the gmxzopezrty, ia maintainable? ijwwW.Wwmwummmamwmwwwmmwwmmmwmﬁmﬂ?ﬂWWLWUWfU?KﬂWWm%K&¥ﬁGHﬂ0UWT@$Kﬂm%WK&§W@Wﬂ

4. Whether the Caurt helaw was justified in hsslding tha :t] f,§he tenancy cf the ¢e£end.antg;~~-1'_j;.§§::;5p__ '2 has been properly tezminaﬁ§ﬁ?V@:.

5. ﬂhether the Jud§mé$£ 6f-Dt§e §o;£# below calls fﬁi inférfenéncé by thié' Court? , 16- 22;'? 'o{1§%v ,, The to under what circumaéapéggﬁﬁﬁe:§§ﬁ%iﬁa§§x¢¢axt cauld permit proaﬁ#éﬁ§n Q: gdﬁﬁggnaé Qvidenca is haw wall. settl e7d.;_. as :1; of Rule 27 of Qr¢ar_41 bf CFC ﬁhé parties to an appeal shall 'n§t ﬁéf¢ﬁ$itle§ fa produce oral or ﬁacumentary ' §vié3$c§ in the appellata Court. However, if tha cirqﬁmstances stated in clauses fa], (aa) u" ! .£_£§}~Bf sub*rule (1) ara ahmwn to exist, thg g&§pé1late court may allaw such additional ='~#vidence or documenza ta be pzeduced or witnesses to be examined. g%y// wan '<\~oaa"$u~$"U»~6ﬁ9N.i$i vmwv: W$$"'"®l'l'hli'\AA£"':..&z35~$-'.w'"~§ xmemwmm. W¢«">9ﬁ3'<¢gg?r{¢V.€fA wean: mwarmamunn--mtm vmuu-us an 1')'. Under: IA-I./200?, the defendants 1. and 2 have sought {:0 produce a receipt v:§é,:;d..t¢ hmra been issued by the third dafgarz:I{a;z.§}:: ~i' ﬁx:

20.'?.20(3'?. ackncwledging the .

Rs . 2,. so, 000/... tram r:1afenxig§.n1;.,.'}§::3'§--3, cheque towards advaxggzge Es.'-:;'t 1.8..20ﬁ7 in respect 'iggramiaea and alac a copy t#cV:'~AA1;a.ve been ﬁiled. by the the Eourt helew to ta him.

In the aummzzt of the vgivafendant has stated that %t:e% has taken a sum 91'?

Rs52;QQ,Qf)6, as future rents ﬁrm issued a JZECE-3'-iiﬁt and _1":b'._a_axx~a£d._*-§ third respondent has nut: the lease. He has fuzcther stated ..t}:gat "as cmpy of this docmstent is ;:art of the Court rewards, but, the original " -'}:equ:i.2:w for the gunman Cﬁf admission. He has furthest stated that the thirad clsafandaxzt gave a copy eaf the reply submitted by him tn: the «§./ prcduced and therefore there axe no gxzaundzs made out for penuiaaion ta pro<iu§;e V.the aciditicnal éacumenta .

19.. As noticed above .:a" first' additimnal cimmmant aztaughiﬂ "ﬁe IA-I/200'? was already?-.V:_ p2:octﬁ€:e.:i ' "'i1fcu1:t"» below. From thiﬁ, it...';i;ss"'*~-._g:1eéi3:»v...tziiat the dafanﬁants 1 t3.iiﬂ»':;$':rsssassian and centrol of.'

20. %&aai:: Eocument is not execute:§. 1 The said. docurnent:

is BtB.t&a..__f<'.&s{ ha§eL:V'A'b§9'e.r;"éxecuted by the third defendant. 1}: faxiazfzc wot deﬁuendants 3. and 2 'pgndeiféy of the suit. It is not this dacumant is ralavant for _ the "prucsf§$ér: '*"Adecision in this appeal. The . . . _ . 4' _o?~23<s§v\ <iogs~.'r$":i8«, L L'- M W" uma-»aIudvm"h%£a't"w.uVH"'0. R&¥n'%\3'&H w..»vw=wza*m MM" m.\M%iWMﬁMNM WSW??? 'ﬁ.«¥JUK5 U3" Wﬁﬁwﬁkgﬁﬁﬂ ?"W€§§"§ £2 3% have not set: mat: any satisfactory ::_ e'a_é'::=.::# as to: why this dacument was net .::'_'prmi'.luced befsre the Ccurt beelow and not 'admittad in the evidence. This damlmant in can czansitziemezi rspinirzm ia not relavant

-"*"?I'~WW M" W "*"""W"%"' "W" 9'1-r'"*W"W*"nWw'NW WWW" 'w"Wm«:vIﬁ'w 'MW £=M"°6WM'wW«m"wwm MM-amm "v-»=warwn.% Wm ww\swxaz*¢:wanm~<w.s:m,:*'*n weawrtrxz m..wNw:;*e.ee Wm W./£3"'%.ﬂ%.&'%S§"*&§§""£&"&.&"% xwww MK. 2:: wnwmvmveawn document :91: prccanczunceraent at Judgment: in this appeal. The aaaond dacuzuent sszmght ta be produced under IA--I.='2E30'? is a xerox copy of the reply said to have been filed by L. defendant No.3 to the daliverad to him. Even acca,!:'dj:ng defendants 1 and 2 the original the reply has not been defendant: into the Cougzt.

of the regal}: ssaici . i:eé~.;z" :" the third defendant 4jT ?'.:7.i¥z§:é.r.if:§j;»§?at<2-xias delivered in th:-._:a V relevant <>f gnronouncirg appea3.. Therafcare, the 2 have not made! out any less satisfactory grcunds ta pradum additiarml dammenm as ..m;miar§d in IA-~:/2007.

21.. In IA-IVKZOGS as noticed above, the defarzciams at:-zzght: to produce the aziginal ageement of lease dae-.-cl ciatsci 3.9.4.2006, téuich aczcarmrding ta thﬁ dazlfeanxriaxtxtzs 1 and 2 ccantains ..,. -mm» mha""IK£ﬁIi'resﬁ'"WvHF"'>W.iil*5W"'% ﬂf6h\vw3"'lX$ V'vm%mM€u47&'%3l mmmmmmmhﬁﬂ Wﬁwﬁ mi an andarsamant regarding receipt of Raj laxhs by the lessarafplaintiffs 1 and 2 from demndants 1 and 2 on 2e.*:.2caoo. The gmum 'V which the defendanta 1 and 2 are esaak_.i..r..§4_:'::w.VVV:~ "

paxrmiegwian ta produce this additional evidence is that V."€:3:;.is could not be ;m:>du<:ed earlier _v2era.sV ~l<'§:sii:

and inspire caf their not trace the aama ea::_1iez:

traced the same %§ii'é'~----hi§£ara this Court .

22. Lea.rn;$:'r§g hiylaintiffs 1 and 2 iiz:t_fe- disputed this statereiant

2. They have cantended " ﬂiant ---_»:ix:>cure,en1: ism mm: achttmisaihla in as much as it :15 mm: pxcperly 5t'4#IL7£_'£_.')tI:E'=s':._'1. &I'1d. mt registered thaugh it is a VA iicbégiuiaoriiy xregistezzahle dacumant, therefozte, Hraliamze can be ﬁlmed on this dccumant.

"However, the learned Sanim: Cauneael nzmzzztstexzciacﬁ that the defendants 1 and 2 are placing . {la Prcwe L zzeliance an this document anly am they

-mw-«o---ue » rm: mw 2: «« """*'"'*'.'.iWf"*'° W" """"*'*M""""'""'"*'*"""'*** *'"WW 'wwwwa MM" mmmmmmmxmm aruwrn MVUKE Ur" nnﬂwﬂimmw. Waww Lwwwa W?" ﬁnk s%am.¢<aa& _ -. WU-'Q ?"ﬁmm*"% Le to ccntansd that the defendant No.3 has continued the: lease by mqzeiving 12.3.2 towards future rants. Having fact and circumstances of the caa_§r,-.V_'4f&r'e¥_% :ali:t&e_ :i<:;~' errar ccmmitted by thﬁ;

rajaating IA $19.23. V.T'If1t_1araaé;*Ee;_:f§:a, 3-:é . £:ée ground tr) interfere :§o1:dex:.

Henna, we answer    néégﬁtive.

2* 

The;     evidence can

raca::d"- i--:4!$:;ci:.3%¢:éLt'es..»"§t2za.t them is my ciiﬁpﬁtg' 1 and 2 are the ca-asmaxiczﬁé at the schedule 'fh"e...._._;1Vafendants hava not disputed ;1':'hair._ sviﬁﬁtxxs as tenants in the acimdule anly cantentian is that the su4."§'.'i;. 1'J';;;s.i%¢<:at maintainable, as all the cc:-owners 4, pxéperty have nat jained as plaintiffs. '31'he principle of law as ten whether: one csf the co-ownem cf 3. tenanted prcsperty can maintain a suit for ejectment of 'elm tenant is Imrw well settled by catena cf decsisions of the I-Io::».'bl-9 /'1 :32: Supreme Court. In 81:11 Run Pasricha V. Jaqannath, upozted in (191634, sac 1;I;iE ::;V.fa:he Apex ﬁomct has bald thus in para 2'?:_;""' ' H' ' V' "duriapmdantially, it _,:'.5 correct to may that :}a m¢é--Qwne-:2."

E3a':c?Pe1ItY is not its every gart of th:3:__'«:;;anp§$e&iV:1:aV _ along with ot1zsax:a "'a_'x";::1%'Vit"*::§z::;at§';he amid that hef is chi?' fiaxt aﬁriisir car a fraaticanal ' égmérv rope xzty.

The p'asviticm"'»-if;-r3.'l3;,_ when Partiti5§z' t§ i::6§ ':i:3:a:3¢:-K"

~ §._g,:3p~athnk, mgmetnd in (19'.l 3_}2._ tn» the cshaervation in Sri Ram '*B_asJ:iV£2h.zé' s»*.§ii'_;'w:a referred ta supra, has ¢b,5:%§1§vaad t}:i1m .'Ln f-9ara'I:

wuvu nvnn"IInIvvl'vImr~onE\c;r"'w. wuanwmraeui wwmwu vn a\:~e.n'maw.mMw'%sa'm"'!& mmww vwwwma J3'?'a,a>"s§»&'~M2**ﬁz'%"*5'd:'5'*"£L§'¢t».4£?"% wgww %.m.¢?wE'K§ WW £'a.e%.539%;?£"'%££ME&'?7eH'E.}-K MES?" hi _ V' _'».'1E'h.:;.3V'%~..,5§:>13.z:t: in Sri Ram Paaricha '- (.;;9i?:.=sV;':*::._f_ 3.34, (:1:-nrifiarzi that a is as much an owner of the enti.z::ias«:_1$r¢:party as any sale came}: at pi-csperty is; Jurisprudantially, «um wwwmwenguuw is net carraczt ta say that a co-

vﬁnwner of yrcsperty is net its owner. He towns every part <>f the composite przaperty alang with cthmza and it carmot 22$ amid that he is only a F lHooIr'uIm!£Imt--v.»mr"«.u\ur"<a ﬁwmhm-am vu-urxrwurrmvn Wu rtvwr'mmm«\::.W"'osuWx:w¢'m awawwruéa "b«~"&m'Fmf5'$m.E£ Wmérvd mmmwmwmamamww mwrwtmst NJ-"Eff" 5m;i"°%WE'§M""¢»¥i""&ﬁ%.oW"Q ?'"EE'§."e7?l»""¥ Wm-§; ma mt been partitionsd. He can along maintain a. suit for aviation of the tenant without joiaing the other co-ownera if auch co-owners do not object . "

In tutti: lrnbralla mnnutmtnrlﬂﬁ. v. amqanmaox .I.q-In-ra1J.a mum 3&9: :L':.s; t_11éés ' Apex Court ham reiterated th__e abovf§fp,;i.;;cif$l%5 ..'A and has obaeztved thaw in paita-.:, 7 '*5. xxxxx. It is W313." sai:tléi§3V"t.*}1at..V'. cane cf the co~awn§3§SA:;%:§.n for eviction of P1:o;3e::'CY g$I3.'E~iei'&.'3'..'$.'.V.5V.f:.Vlj "37".'&JA§:§'=-'i. ' '¢h'¢"'~¢t$- owners. {SQ V. Jagaxmath md' _ v.

Kalawatihaikbw -- _ gitiiiéiple is baae{;i'Wc;_u; ;;i_}§c3;ririé":2:E..~a;gen<:y. One cones-i12,_a1§ for aviation i:: ef:m§:2*1i§Vv-V.--:i5oes so an his right and as of tlfieg other <::<>-czw-mam. 'rim other co-owners is u we -reeuwvr-ammwm "qwu

-Aiiakan uniess it is ahawn mzhmr co-camera were nut agtézegééale CG ejecztt the: tanazzt and w W. aaupmmwm aw.

imegauit was filed inapite of' thair cliaagzreeruent . "

mnwwn wuveuwmvmnl we l'4ul!"'W'kl'€M"'£h9$J"'%W\J'% I'"!i5Jrl QWWWI UK" m nan examined himself before the Court to assert that he baa not given censent te the plain:-izts to file the suit. This in ou::_;~~~--7 '' cpinion is sufficient cizcumetanee te indicate *.'t that he has imgliedry consented Lfett;theteet ' V plaintiffs to file the pxeeentt_eeuit,3AeV:

Therefexe, there is no substaﬁce"_intttﬁeE cententien urged regarding tee meﬁnteineeility H' of the auit. In View of the ehefetdteceeieee, we hold that the p#eeeﬁt_§tit tiieeeemﬁ§ by two of the three §g--§e§§§weé§£j§j§¢cm§n: cf the tenants is magntggagtga. ﬁencet ee answer Point: No. 3 the meme.

- amt nine: %%%% <4 .

'*e'?Hegg,ei§etne dispute that the notice :eg_gexmﬁﬁe£ineteteﬁency of the defendants was E',.,j7e311_,Ved defendants by registered past 5 eeﬁ :5; gees has been issued as per Ex P1 and t fthe sag has been served on the defendants 1 Vt"vee§ 2 as per the postal acknewledgement-Ex P2 Ki]: P3. @ ee'v.\u~'VnII:m«"4ws"VaAw"\v\smw~x:a awe-wmau "«w'mHaw¥av.m Wm 9!'§,éV"'l££"£$'IU"I!l¢"'II:\l'I IIIIJIIH went I 56 mwuvmanmu /Iwl"w.uV.mvnr'nam""a.nmmm vaawwacu-vggrp-enn -mam mm:-nuvamm-waw-mama--m ms mmwmcnnw was ww-vzvmve-mm-mam'-ww-».m~a mmue Vwmwnrndwwxkm

31. Admittedly, the defendants have: not replied the earns. In thia zzwtica, the of the defendants 1 and 2 has bmn on the expiry of 30.9.2001.

bean received by the defégindgititss The suit came to be ﬁiigd oﬁ.%2';11.26%'Qi,%; "

clear: 15 days netice to the defendants 1 of tenancy. N»; V _dc:ubf;., H 0f 1: anancy was an have not the inception of tenazficy H-1.4.2000 and as on 30.8.2001, .__t:'h_e 3. and 2 were in ar::aars5'r:.-:15 r§r1*£.-* t-:3' t.1}::aTt11ne of Rs.4,,25,G60f~. : £:IV¢{éie~a*1;aV':i::,'V. ;ji;as__ t:21eVV"§i§é fe11c:a at defendanta 3. and 2 rants raguiarzly and they 'VV"w9ra npat 15:: a§at:§i'aars cf rent. he noticed abmro, .Ac.'Vl§.f§Iz¢A§ant:a inapite of receipt <>f said gave mt replied the saxaa. Thus, at the § &:»3.-ziieazt point: of tima, when it was alleged the defendants 3. and 2 are in arrears of s rent of aa.4,25,ooo1--, they have not darxied /1' nE'M\"<<;.¢r'~:n>«¢x"'swww"\n as R'$"'0n)5"ﬂ we mum, usmrunnmwr-am.»-'\sm»n¢m mmuvwuw vunwwvmnuuzs -wu mvM'nwwm'cm«"'vamo-tiIr\um"w. new $11»: w:mwmm~uw:m»o \ is « «tr w -v sheet mm plaintiff thrcugh cash. We have no ohjectian ta: pzraziuce those incaamsé'--._ tax returns: in this suit.

payment of 33.3 lakha by cash plaintiff which is stated T made to him subaaqueifg !:';c 1.51195 anf czheque which is P11. I once agai:fV:_L '-axay at:-h%rt:. lg-;aah.~3 amnunt of Rs.8 la]£1'x:s:i ag paid to the V 1'i.:b;':..§.'iI!_'i: :'§#f"1f" :.¢i¥'tha éiﬁté ef tha lease daaéf "

Further, .;-33.7icitf"e&_-- the crema- 9xaminatsi.or;" "fui'.':.ié;.7ez73i : A """ ts: yen on ' you had paid advamtre cf R§3¢_._4B _ to the plaintiff 'vcgsh; 1-$5.11? made you to risésug i.."-Lahaagua 'f;::'2?:V the same am:311nV'.:'--.A£>1i'23_. a_. 2¢a::L"-as 1391: E3: 2213.? A123': takes a. long 1:faLﬁ.§é_and ""'--.1:111€.g*"~'-:ji:eat:::'.c::t1 was put to» .vhiEEi§ ":iZ¥T:i'§«E) . Eiqbﬁually, tha peaaesaion

-.4Barf':._'_'ti;$ ",;sV;:V<:§g>«§zty was given to us in laiavti-'g:£'):L1::;.':2.'An.-gr tor enable us ta atazct .,,_.__g;~.afa.1::T *esr C5:':'E:--;.T Hawever, the agzeement waa a subsequent day by gutting '*Iow*§t$ mmwwuwﬂiul Inrl ¥(mt€"¥«itr\nwm-"<nve!k";;u*s.mw wﬂkwwmags nmmspmgugrmm vs-mu a";p:.¥arvic:1xs data .

L2 wwwwwmmwm caauwmmw wwwmm QWFKWEWMEWERFQ HIUH {Z '% Q11: I put it to you that the cheque for R5.B lakhs at E5: P1}. was iasued by ya: to the plaintiff No.1 tamrds the advance amount fa}: wit pmperty. What: do y-ml way? _. _ R113: The plaintiff hegﬁiiiiitaﬁzgg ~:' this cheque fox: his aafetnjfj delivering tha pc:aaaaai_§'m,_ jthef property to us.

Qn: You have iiitiﬁ' the above quragsticzri' Thnxafore, :;iiia$k i-Aygii quest tsi.-an ii" V (*£h§'*v1i'ﬁ'/egziicvsie K guéaticn wan repeiat-aT§ij;?.' you Bay? . _ ' i Ans': ..._The at Ex P11 was paid ".3.-tivanm emcmnt i:heu'i'ean...e3e premises, which 3.5 the .#ﬁit4V:3:agaperty. The 1" plaintiff was i¢':"v1Ag'a-ﬁg.-V" frisnd af 1" defamriant. As sualpit was given."

. From the above answers elicited in cross-examination, it is clear that 2:: P11 " the chaque issued tewards advance amount:

and the mama has been aiishmnauxed. Thcugh mi-2 atatea that in their income tax mturna, they "0u?§""ﬁ "O~ua'?tmW§aWWxE %6"!£" FN..£'"%xE'k'E'%J!°'¥xE$»&W.WVnA'*'*é. K'ﬁ%Hﬂ'ﬂ"¥& '%»¢%JV6_~,d7!E%2% Val!" wwmmawmmmmm ﬁilitmawﬂ V\w"%d°'9aa'@D'ﬁ'\.i W': In*m~mm»'#z.91-*:anmMwr'"« azmmmwuw wmwwvwkm Mira' U-'\.JD!"%3.F6l"¢H£*§V£'"'i€99£"*63'£\49é"\~ umﬁwaﬁ 'o«»»"«\a:v*tu¢>zrv:'»~ ww-as x~wx"&\Ma'12£e"maw*uxma"1 rﬁnamwnrs WW have mazztionad payment at 113.8 lakhs in cash and thcugh he has ne objaction to proc1v1;a:é§'»T.t1'xe «copy of the incmmza tax raturns, produced the same before the an adverse inference has I»to i:§j; ut3,;I:9!.WT1:"a§'§iLiVI3.,S%I the defendants. If a.a::;<>r:<iin§g - to lakha was paid in caah 'y;he date of the lease deéfi"" its.§é1f,"':«._§~:§§"*«cio nc}t" see any mason as tic; why. f_i$é3:3..é'€i:_-.*éL post-dated cheque as .f_E'2:§é"'V"ie::pi1eanautic:n soughti 't:<> be vthe plaintiff had taxed: for safety while delivézihg #:lie'~L:.'Apa§$§:é3£si:>n of the pzoparty tn them §;an1."1»:>tA V' 159 7ac;~:apted, as ciaﬁendants have in this regard in theiz:

.Vw:_itt %éfn.,V»»Vs£':s.t'aman.t mar any suggesticans was: put ta. during the «grass-examinatian. ..The:ﬁe£§:re, the contentian of the defendantas 1 2 that they have paid Rs.8 lakha in cash " advance to tzha plaintiff haw zmt been establishad as such the Cauxrt below was right in rejecting the said ccmtenticrn. Accoxding to Maﬁifi '&..-\%-.#'%J*%'a.K WFR mmwmaﬁmnmmwm iewvwvmm wwwma 'WW mwmmuurmmrmwwm lzam-swan; '°Wﬁ'9IvI>"Wnol.Y'k1<n3t mm-u »«\u"'"mta :46: R.e.3.,.25,£I~GO!-. Hawevar, surpriaingly, Div?-2 in his exaarzination-in~c11ie£ does not make any mﬁerance ta these two chaquaa. [luring the "

croawexaminatiozm, he admits that the L. Ex PB wag issued by him tot-mrds §%&'.].'2I.'>9'_:'&;V.'1'.'§'V.'v'!"".VV|C)f' '-_.V "

rent. The ansmx: reads thus:- .

'" It is tzrue that aux:

the suit schedn1e~g:'remi§4asL.l"j' :2.-ammenced with effect a$* : u1;A V data from 3_.a.2oc~.o. j:

a cheque at issueci by tie. is. the said cheque . _ :Eo: 3§:,E'..$ . ,'25 .' GGQ! *5 wag isaued ._:a:-.193; . "

to the cheque--E:-: P6 for Rz_:?__';3'«1,E§VG,}I}GO?'*-«...__th<:vugh he admits that he had .V%i'ssuasj§"t2:£$"'sa.id czhaquey) Wtzczsrding to: him that 'ﬂak isatég-:15' tawarda the good will, DW-2 gone an $a;;ri.rx§3'«:_ that in additian to advantze cf Rs.8 A i1'§'kh3, thay also paid. a. sum of 33.6 lathe to I ' ! the plaxntlffs as good 14111 mg them than no documant to show the payment of the gaad will. He admits that they have not infc-rmed thexir Counsel ahﬁhtlt payment of Rs.6 lakhs to the ./1 the issuazace of the said chequa itself has been denied. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of it is atated thuszw mvn >: w<\vx*aw<'wm=".¢\'<\.w W3'? ﬁhgnﬁiwwﬁwl K355" W:...{5"§'AW55.§"5P'h§§§§\ﬁ"% !I'"ﬂFWIs?Ff"l$ "&.s4F%' B'%.iV'l!\hWI"'%F9!?"%W\#WL wmwma '&w"~u~tH1u£IIK\*.s\x maﬁa b."6oJ"'§.tt'Q€P'~9L»*.Y"'31$v$""'\\H%£€"9<x new '*4. The allagat::L@n3_ notice that 0121: cliént '=.ia«a{'ue':i f'L%A--.. the cheque bea::,i;:<ag I'I?;2..!6$3? 23.5.2001 for a eura,§£ na.k1J,%1so;§:ci::~;!¥% drawn on M;-'-fa...Ka;avéL35i'"'~-.§:red'itv--.. .§r;>- opezrat ive Sétﬁiéty"-_ u . B'aii§.alOr$ is falae and £;:x%%¢»1o?a%s is no oc::as§;<:;fx«[:. §;'-:3: Roux' .. issue the "-":éé;1t§:ls tax the a1%lec2a<i mi paid-

S$.-- rapresaants ta us ym§.x_ Auiieiht being the larlﬂlord "ire, r:eV'Bp.te«¢t pf the premises wherein §%.:.ia..*: " client is xznrming the ,::g_;3tVéa:tzf};&nt, he had fxee accessa ta {'£11é j_{J..§Z'eI£13|.5$B. From the praaniaea, it .'iér§s" z1oti¢e<i that the cheque book and péss hack pertaining to the azzcount in question is raining.

Suhaequently, mar client has also notified. the bank in this regard. It wpeazzs your client has unautharisadly taken custody at the cheque and misuaed the same. Char K)

-.-.m. ...suu-wn -ww-Ivan" ur- nnnmnlnmm 'ﬂHHl"l MW-win W1"-'I'e.AltNmiﬂKA"'l"1N:iH"££0l..WM" WW'? %ﬁRWK'§'"ﬂW€.'M mww $3' .-uv~."vv' 9... .._~_..»_-__ -

w4a._ client: will initiate apprapzriate aation against your client since he has cormzitted a clear affance theft: cheating' ﬁiﬁ 'T ' é miaappzcspriation. He has ffaz:L~,i:i§:1u;ex:::wA.T.::' utilised the materials it:V6' i2:§imid$ i:"é._ L. our client . "' 34:. Hmwavmc, " néroasn examination. B'i'3-~2 of saying that reply nat'.i.ca-E3-" at his instanczxe, iasued at the in§_t_g;e1ce:::'* ~ when the. WitI1&B§'; Wa.E§ V #;$}£:$%i' thﬁ contents of E3:

31, he aéa':q;.'*r+aas$'-t:a:_::i".VA'h-iﬁgyééinability to read the ._corzte4_€{Az'w'i'aLA.-5-:rit:2ic:11V1::v riﬂe spescztacles and therefore Ex D11. and P12 were read carver tL£$~.f:'i':_;a V'$a.;3:'%c.xge:§_':§'. and was translated tc him even:

V :Lx1 "j.anguag$ ale-;>. After reading vat =c_pnVfe¢nt:ss off Ex P12 and En}: D1,. the witneas aLs:ked aa ta whether the (mutants of gzaxra 5 T Ex D1 are correct 5.: his evidence hafam ' the 5923:': was correct? W mwmwenec Wu:!*w#I'huN.~.':".«.*r vs uMm'VAwwra~s&o¢- mmmwm m To this question, the witnaae has answered that the contents cf notice at D1 are ccmract. Thus, the whole ('56-5' 5":£'C.x.\*~gL{:j " "

that the vcheque at E}: P6 was ie.e.:;edu1\-tV§we::d£., gemdwill has Bean cotnpletiﬁy Qéinfen

35.. Aacording to lie the receipt issued Hvvrecsived R3.1,25,0E30fA~:-_ in cheque-Ex P8. '.t'n6_ "§ii.sV;-'believed Ex 1.37 and the evieeeee 5% §w§2 ea thie behalf. It in thaugh in Ex P12, there is seﬁeci£iej.'A'e»i?;e}§ation that the cheque for R351;25,(50!J.{é-""ie'eued towards the arrears iieen d$'.'e§1enourec1, in reply neticew Hmmivmumuwm §ﬁ}I§9'Au':W1l#$ Wmmwwﬂsmui Wm m~M"'mwwww-wwsamwgwm vs Esau '.1-em denial of the said fact.

the-«.._at,_§:ie::L'.:'~"2ia.nd, in para. 5 of Ex D1, which "<~£E~<x'\"

extreeﬁed earlier, defendants 5; to the aea52=,:«.":s>.:,1?§.z':- -viof accusing the plaintiff éhzcxmitting VT ef the Cheque Bock. In the written éﬁtzateartent, the defendants have not contended V. that in lieu ef the cheque £03: Re.1;25,000/~ %:>'§"§ Kaﬁﬁﬁﬁml KJE" §"%.!%Kl5'%WK$W§niE'Q.#"% mew" hal'E''' (:3 /,., ¥f»""tH':'tvA""ik \X'!li'o"¢»6H5# wvwvmwnmm "hr#'I( WK"? mwwm W3" mmmwmmmmm FZRWH wmwwﬁﬁ W! twmmammamaum wmaww mws'-*wM':».>z wx W.a&"'v«sz:"&.>s*m:"'xx. % of rants between 1.¢§.2E3E>G to 31.8.2006. Whereas, accorxiing to the contents of with the said paysmrzt, rent: upto was cleared. W-1 in categotical that they have no records fram 1.9.2ooa re the gag cf Eebruarfhﬁﬁﬁl pa =_ been paid to the plaiueiff'. of this admission ere new records to ghost! rente fzem 1.9.2o0o_j§§ﬁeeVtee€_§e§"ﬂef*~$ebxuary 2901, anothezt: him that since thayiﬂ "~,5:mg§. for the said ;2ez:ioA:i,._L4'they._.«t£§§'~»§it:«£V""2iave any recorvzia in that regsareg. 'V queetien the witness has "a._teti1e§ that they have paid the rents "ceéis§1..AV.e'V-f'1'h.u3, there is abaselutely ma a£E«=cap_t&l'§Ai;'§ evidence placed by the defendants ..te1;at: =---ehey have paid the rents from 1.4.2000 Aefupte the and of June 2901. It is the further " Widefence nf the defendants 1 and 2 that since the rents fm::Atha pariad subsequent to: June W63. was net received by the plaintifﬁﬁf when L2' ('\l7\iﬁ \,.,..,._..i 57 However, defendants 1 and 2 are grantee: 3_ months' time to quit and deiiver,f§asantRJ} possession of the schedule groperty" to vthe I plaintiffs. The amount, if any,~in éeeesitiinvgi this appeal is ordered "ts He, paid "tc__tneV plaintiff/respondents.

'"""' ""*"""" "W" ""'*""*"'W"*'W* ""**"-V" :ff»~«a%«*3i-émﬁ ma" memmnsﬂmx HEKEH KQURT Q?' Kﬁﬂmﬂfﬁﬂﬁ "E6?-E CQURT 0? %ﬁRN¢5W'&§{i$ E"§%@%'% ﬁﬂifﬁ? Q5' ¥€a*°~?i§Q%&"§"ﬂ%Kﬁ% Hfﬁﬁ € ("'1 55 >6'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court