Karnataka High Court
Vasudev Rao Since Dead By Lrs vs Lalitha Bai on 8 November, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 08*" DAY OF NOVEMBER,."42§V0t3_'§'.j' ' BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JGSTICE /;1\i}\ND.vI3.YRA1RE€LfD'i"VV REGULAR SECOND AlV?PEALV'NoR.'"'1449 2009 BETWEEN: R R 1.
Mr. Vasudev Rao ' ..
Since dead by LRS R' ' 1(a) Mrs. Laiitvhat Aged abphgt €£9'y::ars, V W/0 Liate \?--as"ud'r:__va"R'aQ';"- " _ ' Residentpf 1'E;_§ar Om VPrAasa_dRHQiel, Ta1iii{fOff§1,ce ' D.1<. M574 2 I'0,_j; _ ...APPELLANT (By Shri. tB'aE2:ikris.i1nEi"SfR1é:Stry, Advocate) I §'x'IVV1~s-R.'._I'gai'i:f'1:ia.;BE'ij-'D' Sii1ce"dec.¢aSéd By _ R. 1(5) Venugdpal R210, RS/0 Smt._L';1xmi Bai, RV " --.Aged'_ab0i1t 65 years, Enterprises ~ Court Road, mttur A 574 201. ...RESPO.NDENT l9 (By Shri. K. Chandranath Ariga, Advocate) $*$** This appeal is filed under section...l00$'ofiC:ode'.V'of_jCi'v_il Procedure, l908_, against the judgment' j.ahd " datebii 15.09.2009 passed in R.A.N0. l. l I/2006.or1'=t_hi'e f"11e'of --the..Pi"i'fic.ip'al Civil Eudge (Sr.I)r1), Puttur, D}K._-t diém_iSsing.appea§l a1iddH confirming the judgment and dectreieadated 'l..O.'Z_7.006 passed in' O.S.No.5/2005 on the file of the____IV3r.it1cipal ctw Judge (gluon), Puttur, . ' i This appeaiAComing...--on._ for -AdLmié'siot'il_t-his day, the Court delivered the fol}_ow_iI'_tg:--i; ' The lappellantiiwas the"deferitianvt'§before the trial Court. The suit wasilfoi .ejectrr1eiIt,iV ettit having been decreed the same was carried in appeal iaiqdifiiias affirmed by the lower appellate
- v ,,t.Cou'1*t.{He'nce'; the preéefiti appeal.
" i."'o2.:_':'=.;i present appeal is filed on the following 0 purip-o__1'tedv~s~uhS'tantial questions of law:--
"(a)Whether the Courts below have erred in law_ini_:holding that the suit for eviction and possession is maintainab.le aiga.ii:1isti'the defendant alone, in the absence of the children since admittedly the alleged tenancy defendant No.l(a) and her childvr;ei'1..t»on the.de.at_h Vasudeva Rao?
(b)Whether the an error of law in throwingigvthei defendant to establish that the there is no relationship of landlordtiand any evidence in this regard producedby the . , ., " 2 _.«.i-gc)\iV"hethe.r"tl1e._C.ot1rts below have erred in law in holding thatthe --is the owner of the suit property and there is relatyionshipioij'landlord and tenant ignoring the admissions of in the absence of any documentary evidence A i'e.sta.bl_ishing the ownership or relationship of landlord and tenant?"
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant,_ii»._4:i*._
4. Insofar the first question is :.:h'e_ appellant claims that the tenancy wasWinhe.rited"'i*ni:fvie'txi of t_he"= original tenant having died and there'f0re_;'in'i' thez1bsenee:"0f"*the other legal heirs of the tenant bilought onirecord, note' rriaintainable.
This question of la'vvi:l'isA i--ncor1jec"t.i}aifo'position of law and hence, would notégive riiseto tiuestions of law, which ii question of legal unknown to law and therefore;._&the_ legal representatives of the original tenant. ought'v.to7hiave'iii been made parties to the suit is an «-ineorireict2/proposition.'""**The suit having been brought against the i"'ouri'g_itnalA t:e'naritliand_j.he having died during the pendency of the suit, his ivxsidowedlilgwife having been brought on record, there was no :necessit.y'~...to bring all the legal representatives on record. ii . T'herefo1'e, the substantial question of law does not arise.
5. Insofar as the second question as t0"i«t_he.:%:urt§eIi proof on the defendant to establish thatmthe' «p_1a«inti;ff.iiisi<not'owner and there was no relationship of _§and1o.rdi'*and te»n'ant"and'-in'*the=, absence of any evidence p1acediiiVi'iVii.iipvthis ithemiearned counsel for the responde;nt":«--is' Vii'sio.u_r§ih't.t>o beiiraised as the second substantialquestion the objections taken that the of the property, the burden of defendant and therefore, the same isiialso of law that would require consideratitiin...
'it.hi1'd substantial question of law as to the admissions.hj(i_.PiW.1 being ignored is not a substantial question of ' "law as the_,re was no such admission on the part of P.W.l as sought _ £Qi'be..averred. Hence, it lacks merits and is not required to be i " -coinsidered.
shall. quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises further orders or execution proceedings being initiated in"'«respec£ i of the same. The appeliant shall file such weeks from today.
8. The appeal is accordingly,~1'ejecte'd'-»_;1nd the'-.suit4 is decreed as prayed for.
*a1b/--.