Karnataka High Court
S S Sathyabhama vs Ramamani on 10 April, 2023
-1-
RSA No. 2090 of 2012
C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2090 OF 2012 (DEC)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2091 OF 2012
IN RSA NO. 2090/2012
BETWEEN:
1. S. S. SATHYABHAMA,
W/O. LATE S.R. SRINIVASA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
2. DR. AMARNATH S. S.,
S/O. LATE S. R. SRINIVASA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
3. HARISH S. S.,
S/O. LATE S. R. SRINIVASA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by R DEEPA 4. SRINATH S. S.,
Location: High S/O LATE. S. R. SRINIVASA SETTY,
Court of AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
Karnataka
5. NAGESH S. S.,
S/O. LATE S. R. SRINIVASA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT,
M.G. ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S. SRIRANGA., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE)
-2-
RSA No. 2090 of 2012
C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012
AND:
A. J. VENUGOPAL NAIDU,
S/O. LATE A. H. JANARDHANA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
COFFEE PLANTER & LAND OWNER,
KANADHAL ROAD,
FORT, CHIKKMAGALUR - 577 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M KESHAVA REDDY., ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 9.10.2012 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.17/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
CHIKMAGALUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 2.1.2012 PASSED IN
OS.NO.101/2008 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.) & JMFC, CHIKMAGALUR.
IN RSA NO. 2091/2012
BETWEEN:
1. S. S. SATHYABHAMA,
W/O. LATE S.R. SRINIVASA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
2. DR. AMARNATH S. S.,
S/O. LATE S. R. SRINIVASA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
3. HARISH S. S.,
S/O. LATE S. R. SRINIVASA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
4. SRINATH S. S.,
S/O LATE. S. R. SRINIVASA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
5. NAGESH S. S.,
S/O. LATE S. R. SRINIVASA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
-3-
RSA No. 2090 of 2012
C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012
ALL ARE RESIDING AT,
M.G. ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S. SRIRANGA., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE)
AND:
RAMAMANI,
W/O. A. J. VENUGOPAL NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
KANADHAL ROAD,
FORT, CHIKKMAGALUR - 577 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M KESHAVA REDDY., ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 9.10.2012 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.18/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
CHIKMAGALUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 2.1.2012 PASSED IN
OS.NO.102/2008 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, CHIKMAGALUR.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These second appeals are filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2012 passed in O.S. Nos.101/2008 and 102/2018 on the file of the Additional civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chikkamagalur, and the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2012 passed in R.A.Nos.17/2012 -4- RSA No. 2090 of 2012 C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 and 18/2012 by the Principal District Judge, Chikkamagalur.
2. Parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. The appellants are defendants. The respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed suits for declaration, possession and damages against the defendants.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property described in the plaint schedule of both the suits are the property measuring 17.5 ft x 18 ft. totally measuring 1431 Sq.ft., situtated at Ward No.17, Municipal Hospital Road, Chikkamagalur. The defendants are the Class-I heirs of late S R Srinivasa Setty, who died on 16.04.2008. During his life time, late S R Srinivasa Setty was the tenant of the entire premises, in which these suit properties were the portions. Said S R Srinivasa Setty was the tenant under one M L Narashimha Setty, who was the owner of the suit property. After his death, his children effected partition, in which the suit properties -5- RSA No. 2090 of 2012 C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 were fallen to the share of his son M N Mohan. Late S R Srinivasa Setty was paying rent during his life time to M L Narasimha Setty. Thereafter, the said M N Mohan and his minor sons sold the suit properties to these plaintiffs under sale deeds dated 02.11.1992. After purchasing the suit property, M N Mohan intimated the tenant S R Srinivasa Setty that he is the landlord and also informed him about the purchase of the suit properties under registered sale deeds and to pay the rent in favour of the plaintiffs. S R Srinivasa Setty agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and he paid the rent for some time. The plaintiff filed HRC petition in HRC Nos.13/1995 and 14/1995 for evicting S R Srinivasa Setty from the suit properties. The said eviction petition came to be allowed. Thereafter, S R Srinivasa Setty filed Rent Revision Petitions before the District Court. During the pendency of the Revision Petitions, the Rent Act, 1999 came into force. The suit properties are commercial properties and plinth area is more than 14 meters and the said revision petitions stood abated. S R Srinivasa Setty -6- RSA No. 2090 of 2012 C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 filed a suit in O.S. No.11/1991 for the relief of specific performance of contract. The said suit was decreed and thereafter the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in RFA No.363/2002 before this Court. The said appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.11/1991 was set aside and consequently, the suit filed by S R Srinivasa Setty came to be dismissed. There was the relationship of tenant and landlord between the plaintiffs and S R Srinivasa Setty. The plaintiffs issued notice terminating tenancy, in spite of termination of tenancy, the defendants continued to be in possession of the property. Hence, cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for ejectment, declaration, delivery of possession and damages.
4. The tenants in both the suits filed a common written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable in law and in facts and admit that they are the legal heirs of late S R Srinivasa Setty and also admit that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit -7- RSA No. 2090 of 2012 C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 property and late S R Srinivasa Setty was running a business and the Katha of suit property was standing in the name of M L Narasimha Setty. He agreed to sell the suit property to S R Srinivasa Setty for the sale consideration of Rs.6,25,000/- on 03.10.1981. M L Narasimha Setty did not comply with the terms and conditions of agreement of sale and S R Srinivasa Setty filed a suit in O.S.No.11/1991 seeking relief of specific performance which was initially decreed and the legal heirs of M L Narasimha Setty filed an appeal before this Court which was allowed mainly on the ground that the suit filed by S R Srinivasa Setty is barred by limitation. The defendants perfected their title over the suit property by adverse possession. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues and additional issues.
-8-RSA No. 2090 of 2012 C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 "Issues in OS No.101/2008
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner with juridical possession of the suit schedule properties?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that deceased S R Srinivasa Setty was tenant and he had agreed to pay the rent of Rs.1,000/- p.m. and the defendants have continued as tenants under him as his legal heirs?
3) Whether the defendants prove that the relationship of tenant and landlordship was ceased in view of sale transaction held between their father and M L Narasimha Setty as on 03.10.1981.
4) Whether the plaintiff proves that the tenancy of late S R Srinivasa Setty is duly terminated with effect from 01.05.2008 to 31.05.2008?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and possession?
6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages as prayed for?
7) What order or decree?-9- RSA No. 2090 of 2012 C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012
Additional issue:
"Whether the defendants prove that they have perfected title over the suit property by adverse possession?Issues in OS No.102/2008
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the owner with juridical possession of the suit schedule properties?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that deceased S R Srinivasa Setty was a tenant and he had agreed to pay the rent of Rs.1,000/- p.m. and the defendants have continued as tenants under him as his legal heirs?
3) Whether the defendants prove that the relationship of tenant and landlordship was ceased in view of sale transaction held between their father and M L Narasimha Setty as on 3.10.1981?
4) Whether the defendants prove that their father S R Srinivasa Setty had perfected his title by adverse possession?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and possession?
6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages as prayed for?
- 10 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012
7) What order or decree?"
6. Both the suits were clubbed together and common evidence was recorded in O.S.No.101/2008. The plaintiff got examined as PW.1 and got marked documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.13. Defendant No.4 in both the suits was examined as DW.1.
7. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff has proved that that he is the owner and in possession of the suit properties and further held that the plaintiff has proved that S R Srinivasa Setty was the tenant and agreed to pay rent of Rs.1,000/- per month and continued as tenant under him and further held that the defendants failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant and landlord which ceased in view of sale transaction between their father and M L Narasimha Setty as on 03.10.1981 and further held that ht plaintiff proved the tenancy of S R Srinivasa Setty is duly terminated with effect from 01.05.2008 to 31.05.2008 and further held
- 11 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and possession also held that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages and further answered additional Issue No.1 in the negative holding that the defendants have failed to prove that they have perfected their title over suit properties in O.S.No.101/2008 by way of adverse possession and in O.S.No.102/2008 held that the plaintiff has proved the same and held that the plaintiff has proved that she is the owner in possession of the suit properties. Further held that the plaintiff S R Srinivasa Reddy was the tenant and agreed to pay rent of Rs.1,000/- per month and continued as tenant and also held that that the defendants have to prove that the relationship of landlord and tenant ceases in view of sale transaction held between their father and M L Narasimha Setty as on 03.10.1981 and further held that the defendants failed to prove that father of S R Srinivasa Reddy had perfected his title by way of adverse possession and further held that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and possession and also
- 12 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 for damages and answered additional issue No.1 in the affirmative holding that termination of plaintiff is proved .
8. The Trial Court after considering the material on record decree that the suit of the plaintiffs with costs vide judgment and decree dated 02.01.2012 and declared that the plaintiffs in both the suits are owners of respective suit properties and further ordered and decreed that the defendants be directed to handover actual and vacant possession of the said premises described in both the suits to the respective plaintiffs within two months from the date of the judgment and further ordered and decreed that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim damages from the defendants at Rs.1,000/- per month from 01.06.2008 till its actual delivery and delivery of possession of suit premises to them. The defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court filed appeal in R.A.Nos.17/2012 and 18/2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chikkamagalur.
- 13 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012
9. The Appellate Court after hearing the parties, framed the following points for its consideration;
"1) Whether the appellants/ defendants in both the appeals have made out a case so as to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial court?
2) What Order?"
10. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of material on record dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. Hence, this second appeal
11. Heard learned counsel for the defendants and learned counsel for the plaintiff.
12. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that Sri S R Srinivasa Setty was tenant under Sri M L Narasimha Setty and Sri M L Narasimha Setty agreed to sell the suit properties in favour of Sri S R Srinivasa Setty and execute agreement of sale. He submits that the said Sri S R Srinivasa Setty filed a suit for specific performance of contract.
- 14 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012
13. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the defendants submits that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property, as a owner claiming to be an owner on the basis of the adverse possession. He submits that in the year 1994, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice terminating the tenancy wherein, the defendants replied to the said show cause notice vide Ex.P.11. Hence, the said aspect was not considered by the Courts below.
14. In order to buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Thimmaiah Vs. Madegowda, reported in AIR 1989 KAR 83. Further, he has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagu and others Vs. Bhanwarsingh and others reported in AIR 1987 MP 102. He submits that the father of the defendant was original tenants since from 1935 to 1981 and the original owner executing an agreement of sale in favour of father of the defendant. The suit for specific performance was came to be filed . The
- 15 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 said suit was decreed by the trial Court, and the appeal was allowed and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is set aside on the ground of limitation. Hence, he submits that the Courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned judgment and decree. He submits that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed and issued a notice of attornment to the defendants/tenants and thereafter, filed HRC eviction proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The HRC came to be allowed and revision was filed by the defendants. During the pendency of the rent Revision Petition bearing Nos.1/1998 and 2/1998 the Rent Control was repealed and the revision was allowed on the ground that the plinth area of the suit property is more than 14 sq.mts. Hence, the provision of Karnataka Rent Control Act are not applicable.
- 16 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012
16. He also submits that Sri S R Srinivas Shetty, admitted the tenancy and filed the suit in O.S No. 11/1991 claiming the decree for specific performance. He submits that the said suit was decreed by the trial Court and reversed by the appellate Court in RFA No.363/2002. In view of the disposal of revision petition, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, possession and damages. He submits that the Courts below were justified in passing the judgments and decrees. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the appeals.
17. This Court vide order dated 21.07.2014, framed the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are vitiated on the account of wrong appreciation of vital documents and perverse consideration of documents and evidence on record.
2. Whether the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is just and proper?
3. Whether the Courts below erred in awarding damages at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per
- 17 -RSA No. 2090 of 2012 C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012
month without evidence and ascertaining the quantum of damages.
4. Whether Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act or Article 65 of Indian Limitation Act is applicable to the relief prayed for in the plaint?
18. Heard and perused the records and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
19. All the substantial questions are interlinked to each other and to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and law, I have taken all these substantial questions together for determination. It is the case of the plaintiff that originally suit property was owned by Sri. M L Narasimhashetty and one Sri S R Srinivas Shetty was occupying the suit schedule property as a tenant. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from one Mohan and his sons under registered sale deed dated 02.11.1992 and became the owner of the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 02.11.1992. After purchasing the said property the plaintiff intimated
- 18 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 about the purchase of suit schedule property to S R Srinivasa Shetty i.e., original tenant under the original owner. It is the case of the defendant that M L Narasimhashetty agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of S R Srivivasa Shetty under the agreement of sale deed in the year 1981. S R Srinivasshetty filed the suit in O.S No.11/1991 seeking for a relief of specific performance in respect of suit property. After the institution of suit by S R Srinivasshetty , the plaintiff filed HRC proceedings in HRC Nos.13/1995 and 14/1995 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru. The said HRC proceedings came to be allowed. The order passed in the HRC Nos.13/1995 and 14/1995 was challenged in rent Revision Petition Nos.1/1998 and 2/1998. During the pendency of the Rent revision, the provisions of Karnataka Rent Control Act was repealed and Karnataka Rent Act came into force in the year 1999. As the plinth area of the suit property is more than 14 sq.mt, the provisions of old Act was not applicable. Hence, eviction petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed
- 19 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 holding that the new Rent Act is not applicable to the suit premises. The suit filed by the defendants came to be decreed vide judgment dated 22.12.2003.
20. The legal representatives of the M L Narasimha shetty preferred the appeal in RA No.363/2002. This Court vide judgment dated 07.08.2007 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed in OS No.11/1991 and consequently, dismissed the suit of the defendants. The plaintiff after dismissal of appeal preferred by the defendants issued a legal notice terminating the tenancy of the defendants over the suit schedule property. The defendants replied to the legal notice denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and possession and damages.
21. The plaintiff in support of his case, examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. In the examination-in-chief affidavit, deposed
- 20 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 about the title of ownership over the suit property and previous litigation between the plaintiff and the defendants in regard to the suit for specific performance of the contract i.e., O.S No.11/1991 and issuing of legal notice terminating the tenancy of the defendants. The plaintiff produced original sale deed dated 02.11.1992 executed in favour of plaintiff as per Ex.P.1 from the perusal of Ex.P1 it is clear that title of property is transferred in the name of the plaintiff and also produced the copy of judgment passed in RFA No.363/2002. As per Ex.P.2 and copies of orders passed in the HRC Nos.13/1995 and 14/1995 and revision petition Nos.1/1998 and 2/1998 as per Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 and also copy of legal notice Ex.P.7 issued to S R Srinivasashetty terminating the tenancy and reply notice Ex.P.8. Admittedly, the said property is standing in the name of the plaintiff.
22. Further, the plaintiff has produced the assessment extract of suit property marked as Ex.P.13. Defendant No.4 was examined as DW.1 and he has
- 21 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 deposed that the plaintiff is not the landlord and tenant and there is no relationship between them. Their father had occupied the suit property since last 70 years and running a business and continued to be in possession of the property as a intending purchaser and further deposed that filing of suit by his father in O.S No.11/1991 and they continued to be in possession of the property and acquired the title by way of adverse possession. It is the undisputed fact that S R Srinivasshetty was in occupation of the schedule property as a tenant. It is alleged that M L Narasimhashetty agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of S R Srinivasshetty. Though, S R Srinivasshetty filed the suit in O.S No.11/1991, the said suit came to be dismissed in RFA No.363/2002 vide judgment dated 07.08.2007 as Ex.P.2. The plaintiff after purchasing the suit schedule property, his vendor attorned the right of the tenancy to the plaintiff by way of attornment. Thus, the defendant continued as a tenant under the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed eviction petition in HRC Nos.13/1995 and 14/1995. The said eviction petition came
- 22 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 to be allowed vide order dated 18.11.1997 and directed the tenants to vacate the suit premises and handover the possession of the same to the plaintiff. Sri S R Srinivasshetty aggrieved by the order passed in HRC Nos.13 and 14 of 1995 preferred the revision petition in R.P Nos.1/1998 and 2/1998.
23. During the pendency of the revision petition, the Rent Control Act was repealed and new Karnataka Rent Act came into force in the year 1999. Admittedly, the plinth area of the suit schedule property was more than 13-14 sq.mts and the provisions Karnataka Rent Control Act 1999 was not applicable to the premises. Considering the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act 1999, the revision petition was allowed. The defendants have taken up a plea of adverse possession. In order to claim the plea of adverse possession, the onus to prove acquisition by adverse possession lay on the defendants, first of all, the defendants have to admit the title of the plaintiff over the
- 23 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 suit schedule property and of adverse possession to the knowledge of the plaintiff i.e., date on which they claim possession, nature of possession, possession was open and undisturbed. In the instant case, the plaintiff filed an eviction petition under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The defendants appeared and filed written statement. In the written statement, there is no whisper about the claim of adverse possession by the defendants in the said eviction proceedings. In the absence of plea of adverse possession, the defendants are deemed to be in possession of the schedule property as a tenant. Admittedly, in the present case, the defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and claimed that he is in possession of the suit property since time immemorial and much prior to purchasing of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff, such possession howsoever long cannot be termed as an adverse possession so as to perfect title within the meaning of Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff has produced original sale deed executed in favour of the
- 24 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 plaintiff. As per Section 8 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which reads as under:
"Operation of transfer- Unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, a transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is then capable of passing in the property and in the legal incidents thereof. Such incidents include, where the property is a land, the easements annexed thereto the rents and profits thereof accruing after the transfer, and all such things attached to the earth and where the property is machinery attached to the earth, the moveable parts thereof; and, where the property is a house, the easements annexed thereto, the rent thereof accruing after the transfer, and the locks, keys, bars, doors, windows, and all other things provided for permanent use therewith".
24. Section 8 of Transfer of Property Act provides that, there is a presumption when the property is transferred and all the things attached to the earth including the rent. Admittedly, the property was transferred in the name of plaintiff by operation of law.
- 25 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 The property is transferred including the right to recover the rent and also the possession. Further, Section 116 of Evidence Act, reads as under:
"Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession-No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such a tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence 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 licence was given".
Section 116 of Evidence Act provides that when a tenant of immovable property admits he is in possession of property of the tenant and during the continuance of the tenancy he denies the relationship of the landlord. Such tenant has no right to remain in possession of the suit property.
- 26 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012
25. Admittedly, in the instant case, the defendants' father was tenant and after his demise the defendants continued to be in possession of the suit property as tenant and have failed to admit the title of the plaintiff over suit schedule property. Hence, the defendants have failed to fulfill the conditions of Article 65 of Limitation Act. The Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has proved that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant and further, the defendants have failed to prove that they are in possession of the suit schedule property and they have perfected the title over the suit property by adverse possession. The plaintiff before instituting the suit issued a legal notice terminating the tenancy with effect from 01.05.2008. Admittedly, the tenancy is a monthly tenancy, that plaintiff got issued a legal notice, 15 days prior of legal notice terminating the tenancy of the defendants over the suit schedule property. Both the Courts below have rightly passed the judgments and decrees. Both the courts have properly considered
- 27 -
RSA No. 2090 of 2012C/W RSA No. 2091 of 2012 the vital documents and evidence on record and rightly awarded damages and held that suits filed by the plaintiff is within time, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivaji Balram Haibatti V. Avinash Maruthi Pawar in Civil Appeal No.19421/2017, disposed on 20.11.2017. In view of the above discussion, substantial questions of law are answered in the negative.
26. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeals are dismissed. No order as to the cost.
SD/-
JUDGE MV/SKS