Bangalore District Court
Sri.S.I.Saravana Rajendran vs Sri S.R.Raja Parthiban on 5 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY : (CCH.18)
Dated this the 5th day of July, 2016.
Present
SMT.K.B.GEETHA, M.A., LL.B.,
XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
O.S.NO.9160/2015
PLAINTIFF: Sri.S.I.Saravana Rajendran,
s/o late S.Indravelu,
aged about 71 years,
r/at No.614, Maruthi Street,
Opp Florence School,
Subbanna Palya,
Banaswadi,
Bangalore-560 033.
(By Sri L.Mallikarjuna, Advocate)
-VS-
DEFENDANT : Sri S.R.Raja Parthiban,
Aged about 41 years,
s/o S.I.Saravana Rajendran,
r/at No.614, Maruthi Street,
Opp Florence School,
Subbanna Palya,
Banaswadi,
Bangalore-560 033.
( By Smt.TM, Advocate)
2 O.S.No.9160/2015
Date of Institution of the suit : 5/11/2015
Nature of the Suit : Ejectment
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 22/6/2016
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 5/7/2016
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 00 08 00
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against defendant for the relief of eviction of defendant from suit schedule property; to direct defendant to pay damages at Rs.10,000/- p.m.; for court costs and for such other reliefs.
2) The case of plaintiff in nutshell is that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.614, situated at Maruthi Street, opposite to Florence School, Subbanna Palya, Dodda Banaswadi, Bangalore, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dd:17/12/1993 from his hard earned money. Defendant is the son of plaintiff. Plaintiff has provided good education 3 O.S.No.9160/2015 to defendant and made him a doctor out of his hard earned money and performed the marriage of defendant from his hard earned money. Plaintiff is a senior citizen and it is the bounden duty of defendant to maintain plaintiff at this age. Instead of that, defendant has been threatening the plaintiff and beating him mercilessly. Plaintiff has tolerated all the physical and mental agony from the hands of the defendant. Defendant is having two flats and one home in the same locality and he can reside along with his wife in any one of those flats or house, without living together with plaintiff and as such, defendant has to pay the damages of Rs.10,000/- per month till he vacates the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs.
3) Even after service of summons, defendant appeared through his counsel, but not filed written statement within the prescribed period.
4) On behalf of Plaintiff, plaintiff is examined himself as P.W.1, got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and closed his side.
5) Heard arguments of plaintiff's counsel. 4 O.S.No.9160/2015
6) From the above facts, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of suit schedule property?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendant from the suit schedule property?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages? If so, at what rate?
4) What order or decree?
7) Findings of this court on the above points are:-
Point No.1: - In Affirmative;
Point No.2: - In Affirmative;
Point No.3:- Partly in Affirmative; Point No.4: - As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
8) Point No.1:- The plaintiff has produced the original sale deed, khatha certificate and khatha extract as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. These documents clearly establish that plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property from one V.D.Jose under a registered sale deed dtd:17/12/1993 and then, its khatha is mutated into the name of plaintiff.5 O.S.No.9160/2015
Plaintiff is paying taxes of this property. These documents clearly establish that plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in affirmative.
9) Point No.2:- The plaintiff contended that defendant is his son and residing in the suit schedule property along with his wife, but defendant is treating plaintiff mercilessly. Plaintiff contended that defendant is assaulting plaintiff and causing physical and mental agony to plaintiff. It is also pleaded in the plaint that defendant also owns 2 flats and one house in the same locality and thus, defendant can shift his residence, but defendant along with his wife is not shifting the residence and causing threats to plaintiff and plaintiff requires building for his use alone.
10) Plaintiff has produced the ration card as per Ex.P.5. It shows that plaintiff along with his wife- Shyamala, son- defendant and his wife and children are residing in the suit schedule property. Thus, it is proved 6 O.S.No.9160/2015 that defendant is also in occupation of suit schedule property. When plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property, it is his will and wishes to have any person in the suit schedule property or to direct any person to vacate it. Defendant is not a tenant and not a licensee, but being the son of plaintiff; he is residing along with plaintiff in the suit schedule property. As plaintiff claims that he does not want to live with defendant, plaintiff can direct defendant to vacate the suit schedule property. Hence, plaintiff has issued legal notice dtd:9/10/2015 as per Ex.P.6 to defendant calling upon him to vacate the suit schedule property. This notice was not received by defendant, but it is received by his mother. Even suit summons was also not received by defendant. But defendant appeared through his counsel. This shows that defendant is fully aware about the filing of the suit and even issuance of legal notice to him. Defendant has not contested the suit by denying any of the averments made in the plaint that he is having alternative residence or any other facts. Hence, this court holds that plaintiff is entitled for eviction 7 O.S.No.9160/2015 of defendant. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in affirmative.
11) Point No.3:- According to plaintiff, defendant is having alternative residence and even then, he has not vacated the suit schedule property even after plaintiff requested and demanded to do so. When plaintiff being the owner of the property is not intending to have his son in his property, then the occupation of defendant in suit schedule property amounts to trespass. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for damages from defendant. However, damages is to be ascertained in a separate proceeding, because plaintiff has not produced any evidence in this case regarding nature of occupation of defendant in the suit schedule property and what would be the rental value or any other details of the suit schedule property. Hence, this court holds that plaintiff has to file separate petition under Order XX R.12 CPC to determine the damages. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in affirmative.
8 O.S.No.9160/2015
12) Point No.4:- In view of finding on point Nos.1 to 3, this court proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit is partly decreed with costs. Plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendant from suit schedule property.
Defendant is hereby directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of suit schedule property to plaintiff within three months from today.
Plaintiff is entitled for damages from the date of suit till defendant handing over vacant possession of suit schedule property to plaintiff.
Plaintiff can file a petition under Order XX R.12 CPC for determination of quantum of damages.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by me in computer and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th day of July, 2016).
(K.B.GEETHA) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.9 O.S.No.9160/2015
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 - S.I. Saravana Rajendran
(b) Defendant's side : N I L II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Original Regd.Sale Deed
dtd:17/12/1993
Ex.P.2 Khatha certificate
Ex.P.3 Khatha extract
Ex.P.4 Tax-paid receipt
Ex.P.5 Ration Card
Ex.P.6 Office copy of legal notice
dtd:7/9-10-2015
Ex.P.7 Postal acknowledgment
(b) Defendant's side : - Nil -
XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
GVU/-
10 O.S.No.9160/20155/7/2016 Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate detailed judgment with the following operative portion:-
ORDER The suit is partly decreed with costs. Plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendant from suit schedule property.
Defendant is hereby directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of suit schedule property to plaintiff within three months from today.
Plaintiff is entitled for damages from the date of suit till defendant handing over vacant possession of suit schedule property to plaintiff.
Plaintiff can file a petition under Order XX R.12 CPC for determination of quantum of damages.
(K.B.GEETHA) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.