Bangalore District Court
Sri.Venkata Reddy G vs Sri.Yogesh T.D on 22 February, 2022
KABC020294422018
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL & A.C.M.M. (SCCH26) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT: SRI.R.MAHESHA. B.A.L, LLB.,
XXIV ADDL. SCJ &
ACMM & MEMBER MACT
BENGALURU.
S.C No.1715/2018
PLAINTIFF : Sri.Venkata reddy G
S/o Lakshmi Reddy G
Aged about 41 years
R/at No.11/A, 4th main road
Vidyanagara, in front of
St.Maries school
Nagasandra post
Bengaluru560 073
(By Sri.S.T.Advocate )
V/s
DEFENDANTs : Sri.Yogesh T.D.
S/o Dasegowda
Aged about 25 years
At No.11/A, 1st floor
4th main road,
Vidyanagara, in front of
St.Maries school
Nagasandra post
Bengaluru5600 073.
(Sri.T.S.R.Advocate )
Date of Institution :
04.12.2018
of the suit
Nature of the suit :
Ejectment
Date of :
05.04.2019
commencement
recording of the
evidence
Date on which the :
judgment was
pronounced
22.02.2022
Total Duration :
Year Month/s Days
03 02 18
(R.Mahesha)
XXIV Addl. Small Causes Judge,
& A.C.M.M. Bangalore.
::JUDGMENT::
This suit is filed by the plaintiff for a judgment and decree against the defendant for ejectment, direct the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff, direct the defendant to pay damages at the rate of Rs.5,000/from the date of filing of this suit till its realization, cost of the suit and pass any such other relief.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint are as follows: That the plaintiff is absolute owner of the property bearing No.11/3, 4th main road, Vidyanagara, front of St.Maries school, Nagasandra post, Dasarahalli village, Bengaluru560 073 having acquired the same under the registered sale deed dated 4122017 from its previous owner namely Smt.T.C.Sumithra. That at the time of purchase of property, the defendant in possession as tenant under said Sumithra with respect to portion of house property bearing No.11/A, 1st floor, 4th main road, Vidyanagara, in front of St.Maries school, Nagasandra post, Dasarahalli village, Bengaluru560 073, consisting of one hall, a room, kitchen, common bath room and toilet with all civil amenities. That prior to purchase of the schedule property the plaintiff visited the schedule property and in presence of previous owner the defendant had shown original rental receipts and rental agreement dated 1052016 executed by its previous owner and shown refundable security deposit of Rs.25,000/ and monthly rent of Rs.4,000/p.m. inclusive of water charges under said rent agreement. That the defendant had agreed to vacate the schedule premises within three months time. That after purchase of property, the plaintiff had requested defendant to pay monthly rent but defendant requested to deduct the rent from the advance security deposit and further assured to vacate the schedule premises in the month of May 2018. That the defendant did not vacate the schedule premises in the month of May 2018 and plaintiff requested to pay rent and to vacate the schedule premises but defendant requested another one month time to vacate the schedule premises and complainant agreed as final chance to vacate the schedule premises. That the defendant did not comply with his promises and in the last week of June 2018 the plaintiff requested and demand the defendant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the schedule premises. That all of sudden the defendant threaten that he is not tenant under plaintiff also not tenant under previous owner of the schedule premises and without having any option the plaintiff has decided to vacate defendant from the schedule premises through court of law. That against the illegal acts of the defendant on 1809 2018 the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant by RPAD. That the notice sent by RPAD is evade by the defendant and returned with endorsement as intimation delivered. That the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the defendant. That the defendant neither has paid the amount and vacate the schedule premises nor has replied to the said notice. That from 4122017 till the day the defendant has not paid agreed rent of Rs.4,000/p.m. for a period from December 2017 to August 2018 total amounting sum of Rs.36,000/ which is deducted from advance security deposit of Rs.25,000/ and defendant is arrears of Rs.11,000/ rent to the schedule premises as on the date of legal notice and defendant became defaulter tenant and is liable to pay arrears of rent and to vacate the premises. Further rent of schedule premises in the said locality is more than Rs.5,000/p.m. from the date to termination of tenancy the defendant is liable to pay damages of Rs.5,000/p.m. till its realization. Hence plaintiff prays for a judgment and decree against the defendant for ejectment, direct the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff, direct the defendant to pay damages at the rate of Rs.5,000/from the date of filing of this suit till its realization, cost of the suit and pass any such other relief.
3. After service of summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed written statement. In the said written statement he has stated that plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property. Suit schedule property is the property of Smt.R.Sharada W/o K.M.Narayana. Smt.R.Sharada had purchased the same under a sale deed dated 11122017 from T.N.Jayasimharaju S/o Narasimaiah. That the sale deed has been registered in the office of the SubRegistrar, Laggere as document No.2558/201718. That the property of the plaintiff is situated on west of the property of Smt.R.Sharada. That the property of the plaintiff measure east to west 25 ft and north to south 40 ft on which there is a three storied building i.e., ground, first and second. That the property of plaintiff is having boundaries i.e., east by house property of Smt.Sharada, west by house property No.11, north by Naala, south by 30 ft road. That the property of Smt.Sharada is having following description: eastern portion of site No.11A measuring east to west 29.6+24/2 ft and north to south 38.6 +17.6/2 situated at 4th main road, Vidyanagara, Dasarahalli, Bangalore560 073 which is having the following boundaries i.e., east by : Naala, west by western half portion of site No.11A which was retained by T.C.Sumithra and the same was purchased by the plaintiff under a sale deed dated 4122018 from T.C.Sumithra, north by Naala, south by 30 ft. road. That on the said property there is one shop in the ground floor, there is a residential houses in the first floor and another residential house in the second floor of the said property. That the defendant has been in occupation of first floor portion of the property of Smt.Shardha. That earlier as a tenant under T.N.Jayasimharaju, presently as a tenant under Smt.R.Sharada W/o K.M.Narayana. That Smt.R.Sharada after purchasing the property, permitted this defendant to continue to live in the schedule premises as a tenant under her. That the defendant paying a sum of Rs.3,50,000/ to Smt.R.Sharada as lease amount, has been residing in the schedule premises. That the defendant upon paying a sum of Rs.3,50,000/ has taken the first floor portion of the said property on lease from Smt.R.Sharada with an understanding that the said amount does not carry any interest, on the other hand the defendant is not liable to pay any rent for the premises. That the plaintiff is not the landlord of the premises. That plaintiff is not justified in approaching this court by contending that he is the landlord of the schedule premises and that the defendant is a tenant under him in respect of the schedule premises, so also has no right to contend that he has not paid rents to him. That in the absence of relationship of landlord and tenant the suit one filed by the plaintiff needs to be removed from the file of this court with exemplary costs since the plaintiff unnecessary dragged the defendant to this court, through there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and defendant in respect of the premises in question. That the premises in question is the property of Sharada and not the property of plaintiff. That the plaintiff with an intention to grab the property of Smt.Sharada has filed this frivolous suit as if he is the owner of the said property and defendant is a tenant under him. That the plaintiff had sent a notice to the defendant as the defendant was out of town he could not able to receive the same. By the time he returned to Bangalore the notice sent by the plaintiff had gone back. That this defendant is in possession of the property as a tenant under Smt.R.Sharada and in that regard he has paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/ to her as an earnest money deposit which does not carry any interest and at the same time the defendant is not liable to pay any rent. Hence defendant prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
4. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and got marked ExP1 to 7. On the other hand defendant himself got examined as DW1 and got marked ExD1 to 3.
5. I have heard oral argument from advocate for peittioenr and respondent.
6. Learned counsel for defendant produced memo along one decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and two documents.
1. Ayesha Begum Vs Shahzadi ILR 2003 KAR 4255 wherein Hon'ble High court of Karnataka while exercising revisional powers where the question of relationship of landlord and tenant decided and a finding fact is recorded by the court under the Act, there could be no bar for High court sitting in revision to do. It goes without saying that all powers that are available to a inferior court or amenable to a court haivng higher jurisdiction. The High court sitting in revision u/s 115 CPC can take cognizance of the findings recorded by the courts below to a give a direction u/s 43 of the Act revision proceedings is stopped and parties directed approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights.
2. Xerox copy of plaint in O.S.No.6389/19 which is filed by present plaintiff Venkata Reddy against Smt.T.C.Sumithra, two and others, this suit pending on the file of city civil court, (CCH32) at Bangalore.
3. xerox copy of the written statement filed by defendant No.3 in O.S. 6389/2019.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the plaintiff has proved the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the defendant?
2. Whether plaintiff is entitle for damages as claimed?
3. Whether plaintiff proved that the termination of tenancy in respect of suit schedule property?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitle for the delivery of vacant possession of suit schedule property?
5. What order or decree?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : Negative
Point No.2 to 4 : Does not survive for
consideration
Point No.5 : As per final order for the
following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1: The petitioner in order to prove his case not
only with regard to the existence of the jural relationship between him and the defendant, but also with regard to his relief claimed in plaint he examined himself as PW1 and through his evidence he got marked ExP1 to 7. ExP1 -certified copy of the sale deed dt.412 2017, ExP2 certificate dt.1832019, ExP3katha extract dt.183 2019, ExP4property tax receipt dt.1532019, ExP5legal notice dt.18092018, ExP6postal receipt dt.18092019, ExP7unserved postal RPAD cover.
10. The petitioner in his chief affidavit he again reiterated entire petition averments and he being subjected cross examination by defendant. During course of cross examination, he clearly admitted one rough sketch which is confronted by defendant and it was marked through PW1 as ExD1 and ExD1(a) and (b). PW1 clearly admitted during course of cross examination that he was purchased property 900 sq.ft. from one Sumithramma. It consists two building and admitted as per ExD1, there is a two properties exists with a common boundaries with a different extent, his purchased property extent was including one passage 22.6 feet and 40 total he purchased 904 sq.ft. as per his sale deed. Further he clearly admitted during course of cross examination as per ExD1, after completion of 904 sq.ft., another building situated and it consists 3 floor buildings in 486.50 sq.ft measurement and PW1 further contended that he reside in first floor of building in measurement of 486.50 and another two floors letout to two other tenants. Further PW1 admitted during course of cross examination that he purchased constructed building from his vendor and further contending during course of cross examination that his purchased building extent from out of 3 floors may comes 27 sq ft. Further he admitted during course of cross examination that he purchased total 900 sq.ft., in one floor it consists 10 sq.ft building and it had 3 floors from his vendor. Further PW1 contended during course of cross examination that he purchased the measurement mentioned in exD1 486 sq.ft., and he letout the said extent property to his tenants. Further it is elicited from the mouth of PW1 during course of cross examination that the measurement mentioned in ExD1 as 486 sq.ft., it had 3 floor building and total building sq.ft was 800 sq.ft., and boundaries to the ExD1 which is mentioned as 486 sq.ft., was east and north by Naala, west by 900 sq.ft. (he denied this suggestion) and he contended the boundaries are one are same to both properties which were mentioned in ExD1 900 sq.ft., property and 486.50 sq.ft. property. Further PW1 admitted during course of cross examination that the extent mentioned in ExD1 486 sq.ft property in that property one Sumithra was resided as tenant and he contended that he letout the said property to Sumithra after 4122017. Further it is elicited through mouth of PW1 that he filed another case against one Sumithra for eviction from measurement of 486 sq.ft., property as mentioned in ExD1. Further it is admitted during course of cross examination that the measurement mentioned in 486 sq.ft, property sold by Sumithra in favour of plaintiff. Further it is admitted during course of cross examination that one Yogesh was tenant in property mentioned in ExD1 as 486 sq.ft., in 2nd floor of building. Further PW1 contended during course of cross examination that he letout property to one Yogesh, Sumithra, Nagaraja for rent purpose and they are all tenant under plaintiff. Further during course of cross examination, PW1 clearly and categorically admitted that there is no document to show the said Sumithra, Nagaraja and Yogesha were tenant under plaintiff. Further PW1 admitted that he get katha in his name for the extent of 900 sq.ft., and paying taxes regularly but he did not get katha for extent of 1705 sq.ft., and not paying taxes to total extent of 1705 sq.ft., Further he denied the suggestion of defendant one Sharadamma was used to pay taxes to measurement 486 sq.ft., which is mentioned in ExD1 and the said property purchased by Smt.Sharada. Further he denied suggestion of defendant that Sumithra, Yogesha and Nagaraja were tenants under Smt.Sharada, they regularly paying rent to Smt.Sharada and he denied other formal suggestions made by defendant during course of cross examination.
11. The defendant himself examined as RW1 wherein he has reiterated the entire written statement averments and he produced ExD2 and 3. ExD2 was certified copy of the same deed dt.1112 2017 and ExD3original copy of lease deed dt.292018, he has been subjected cross examination by plaintiff, he stated during course of cross examination that he well aware about this case facts and circumstance and contending that he was not reside in the plaintiff house as tenant, he came to know about above suit filed against him in the year 2018 through one Sharada. He seen plaintiff in the court prior to this he never seen plaintiff in anywhere. It is elicited during course of cross examination that he did not aware about total extent of ExD1 and the said properties belongs to whom and he did not seen property documents of ExD1 (properties). He came into property in the year 2017 as a tenant, he clearly denied other suggestions of plaintiff regarding execution of sale deed as per ExP1 in favour of plaintiff through one Sumithra and her husband Jayasimha and their daughter Kumari.Harshitha. Further he denied other suggestion of plaintiff regarding plaintiff had mortgaged his purchased property in Cholamandalam bank and obtained loan from Cholamandalam bank. Further DW1 deposed during course of cross examination that he obtained ExD2 through advocate, the total extent of ExD2 was 780 sq.ft., ExD2 executed by Jayasimharaja and Sumithra. There is no signature of Kumari.Harshitha in ExD2. When he came to property of Sumithra, he presumed that Sumithra was the owner of said building. Further he admtited during course of cross examination that plaintiff has instituted criminal case against Jayasimharaju, Harshitha, Sumithra, Yogesha and Nagaraju and he contended that the said criminal complaint dismissed against Jayasimharaju, Harshitha, Sumithra, Yogesha and Nagaraju. Further DW1 denied the suggestion of plaintiff that one Jayasimharaju was committed suicide due to harassment of creditors and he admitted that after selling property Jayasimharaju was died. DW1 admitted that he had knowledge about notice issued by plaintiff for vacating property but he contended the said notice not duly served on him, it received by Smt.Sharada and she orally instructed about quit notice. Further he denied suggestion of plaintiff they created ExD1 to 3 for the purpose of troubling to plaintiff and he denied other suggestions regarding he was tenant under plaintiff and he had due of rent of Rs.36,000/ and he bound to pay rent of Rs.5,000/p.m. after issuance of quit notice etc., Further DW1 clearly and categorically denied other suggestions made by plaintiff during course of cross examination.
12. With due respect the law laid down by Apex court Keeping in view, the contentions urged by the counsel for the petitioner and defendant, this court has to appreciate the evidence available before this court in the form of oral and documentary evidence with regard to the jural relationship between the parties is concerned.
13. The plaintiff has relied upon ExP1 to 7, on meticulous perusal of document, it is forthcoming that ExP1 is a sale deed dt.4 122017 which is executed by one Smt.T.C.Sumithra in favour of plaintiff a property bearing earlier survey No.31, situated at Dasarahalli village, Yashavanthapura hobli, Bangalore north Tq which is converted through order of Bangalore DC in the year 1989 1990 and converted as site in 11A, katha No.48, measuring extent east to west 45+45/2 feets, north to south 40+0/2 along with building sold for a total sum of Rs.34,87,000/ in favour of plaintiff. The said sale deed consented by her husband T.N.Jayasimharaju and one daughter Kumari.Harshitha. The schedule details of property is east by vacant land and halla, west by 11 number site, north by halla, south by 30 ft road, total measurement of site and constructed building 900 st.ft., and 10 sq.ft., constructed RCC building. ExP2 is certificate issued by BBMP revenue officer, Peenya industrial area sub division, he stated, as per sale deed he mutated katha in favour of Venkatareddy. ExP3 was katha extract for the year 2018 and 2019, the suit schedule premises earlier in the name of one Smt.Sumithra, now it is rounded off her name and include name of plaintiff with effect from 1832019. ExP4 property tax receipts, it disclose that on 1532019, one Venkatareddy paid tax to the property No.2073 which is situated in residential zone, No.11/A, Vidyanagara, Dasarahalli, 4th cross, Chokkasandra and he paid total tax of Rs.14,713/ for the said property. ExP5 legal notice dt.189 2018 from one Venkatareddy to one Yogesh T.D. for vacating schedule premises and paying arrears of rent,damages etc., ExP6 postal receipt dt.18092018. ExP7 was unserved RPAD legal notice issued by plaintiff advocate dt.1892018 which is returned as Door locked. On the other hand, defendant produced ExD1 to 3. ExD1 was a rough sketch. ExD2 was sale deed dt.11122017 by one GPA holder of B.K.Narayanarao and his representative T.N.Jayasimharaju in favour of Smt.R.Sharada. Shedule detail of property was the property situated earlier in Dasarahalli village, Yashwanthpura hobli, Bangalore north Tq and it is now converted assessment No.31 and katha No.48 extent 2 acres 37 guntas and out of which extent sites are made in 11 A eastern of property boundaries as follows; east by halla, west by 11A site remaining property of T.C.Sumithra, north by halla, south by remaining site property of 11A and at present 30 ft road exists. The total extent of above property east to west 30+48/2, north to south 40+0/2 total extent 780 sqft., site and constructed building 6 sq.ft RCC building. ExD3 was rental agreement dt.29 2018 which is entered between one Sharada being owner of schedule premises and one Yogesha being tenant under Smt.Sharada.
14. Peruse the entire record. It disclose that the present defendant denied the ownership over suit schedule premises of the plaintiff and further he specifically denied jural relationship between him and plaintiff. During course of cross examination PW1 admitted ExD1 and it is forthcoming from ExP1, ExD1 and D2, there is a existence of two properties in a common boundaries with a different extent. It is pertinent to note down the admission given by PW1 during course of cross examination.
ನನನ ಸನಮತ ತಮಮ ನವರರದ 900 ಚದರ ಅಡ ಜಗವನನ ನ ಖರರದ ಮಡದನ. ಉತತರ, ದಕಣ, ಪಶಶಮ ದಕಕನ ಕಡ 40 ಅಡ ಇದ . ನಪ 1 ರ ಪ ಪಕರ 900 ಚದರ ಅಡ ಒಳಗ ಸನಮತ ತಮಮ 2 ಬಲಲರಗಬರದನಕಕಟಟದರ. ನಶನ ಡ 1 ನಕ ಯ ಎಡಭಗದ 22.6 x 40 ಒರದನ ಮನ ನ ನಶನ ಡ1 ಎರದನ ಗನರನತಸಲಗದ ಮತನತ ಮನಯ ನಕ ಯ ಭಗವನನ ಇರನತತದ ಅದನನ ನ ನಡ 1 ಎ ಎರದನ ಗನರನತಸಲಗದ. ನಶನ ಡ1 ಎ ಮಕಲಯಲ ಒರದನ ಪಪಸರಜ ಇದ ಎರದನ ಒಪಪರನವದರರದ ನಡ ಬ ಎರದನ ಗನರನತಸಲಗದ . ಪಪಸರಜ ಒಳಗಕರಡನ 22.6 ಅಡ ಇದ ಎರದರ ಸರ . 40 x 22.6 ನನ ನ ಗನಣಸದರ 904 ಅಡ ಬರನತತದ ಎರದರ ಸರ. ನನನ ಸಸತತದ ನರತರ ಉತತರ ದಕಕಗ ನಲ ಇದ ಎರದರ ಸರ. ನಡ 1 ರಲರನವ 486.50 ಚದರ ಅಡ ಎರದನ ನಮಕದಸರನವ ಜಗದಲ 3 ಅರತಸತನ ಬಲಲರಗ ಇದ ಎರದರ ಸರ. 900 ಚದರ ಅಡ ಎರದನ ಬರದರನವ ನಡ 1 ರಲ 3 ಅರತಸತನ ಕಟಟಡ ಇದ ಎರದರ ಸರ. ನನನ ಕಟಟಡ ಕಟಟದ ಬಲಲರಗನನ ನ ಖರರದ ಮಡದನ. ನನನ ಯವದರ ಕಟಟಡ ಕಟಟಸಲಲ . 3 ಮಹಡಗಳರದ 27 ಚದರ ಅಡ ಕಟಟಡ ಬರನತತದ. ನನನ 900 ಚದರ ಅಡ ಜಗದಲ 10 ಅಡ ಚದರ ಕಟಟಡ 3 ಮಹಡಗಳ ಕಟಟಡ ಖರರದ ಮಡದನರದರ ಸರ. ನಶನ ಡ1 ರಲ 486 ಎರದನ ಬರದರನವ ಸಸಳದಲ 3 ಅರತಸತನ ಕಟಟಡ ಇದ ಎರದರ ಸರ . ನಶನ ಡ 1 ರ 486 ಚದರ ಅಡ ಎರದನ ಬರದರನವ ಕಟಟಡದಲ 800 ಅಡ ಕಟಟಡ ಇದ ಎರದರ ಸರ . ನಶನ ಡ 1 ರ 486 ಚದರ ಅಡ ಎರದನ ಬರದರನವ ಆಸತಗ ಚಕನ ಕ ಬರದ ಪವರ ಮತನತ ಉತತರಕಕ ನಲ ಇದ ಎರದರ ಸರ . ಪಶಶಮಕಕ 900 ಚದರ ಅಡ ಸಸತನತ ಇದ ಎರದರ ಸರಯಲಲ. ಸಕ ಸಸತತ 2 ಸಸತತಗಕ ಒರದರ ಚಕನ ಕ ಬರದ ಎರದನ ಹರಳನತತರ. ದಕಣಕಕ ಸಕರರ ರಸತ ಇದ ಎರದನ ಹರಳನತತರ . ನ ಡ 1 ರಲ 900 ಚದರ ಅಡ ಎರದನ ತಕರರಸರನವ ಆಸತಯನ ನಡ 1, 486 ಎರದನ ಬರದರನವ ಆಸತಯ ಪಕಕದಲ ಇದ ಎರದರ ಸರ. ನಡ 1 ರಲ 486 ಎರದನ ಬರದರನವ ಮದಲ ಅರತಸತನ ಕಟಟಡದಲ ಸನಮತ ತ ಎರಬನವವರನ ಬಡಗಗ ಇದರ. ಈ ಬಡಗದರರಗ ಇರನವ ಸನಮತ ತರವರರ 900 ಚದರ ಸಸತತನನ ನ ಕ ತಯ ಪತ ತ ಬರದನಕಕಟಟರನ. ನಡ 1 ರಲ 486 ಎರದನ ಬರದರನವ 2 ನರ ಕಟಟಡದಲ ಯಗರಶ ಎನನ ನ ವವರನ ಬಡಗಗ ಇದರ.
ನಡ1 ರಲ 900 ಚದರ ಅಡ ಎರದನ ಬರದರನವ ಕಟಟಡಕಕ ನನನ ಹಸರಗ ಖತ ಆಗದ ಎರದರ ಸರ .
15. So as per above admission given by PW1, it clears the mind of this court that there is a two properties existed in the spot as per ExD1. The present plaintiff was purchaser of 900 sq.ft. as per Ex P1 and katha transferred in the name of plaintiff for his purchased property and he paying taxes to his purchased property only. This court being the court of small cause cannot be adjudicate and try upon the dispute involved in the title. But section 16 of Karnataka Small Cause courts Act, confers on the court of small causes a discretion either decide the question of title or not at its option. The above section clearly confer that the small cause court is not debarred or precluded from trying the dispute involved title and give findings regarding the title. But it is the discretionary and convenient of the small cause court to decide or not to decide the question of title. However it is pertinent to note that the small cause court cannot decide the title if it is arisen as main question and grant the relief of title and it can only decide title incidentally and not finally. In the present case, the main issue/question is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff had succeeded in proving the jural relationship, this court need not give findings as to title of the plaintiff. This court has limited power to ascertain there is a jural relationship between plaintiff and defendant and the plaintiff properly terminated quit notice u/s 106 of TP Act. During course of argument, learned defendant counsel produced memo along plaint and written statement copies of O.S.6389/2019, (CCH32) on the file of Addl.City Civil and Session Judge, Bangalore. It is forthcoming from said plaint and written statement that the present plaintiff instituted suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed dt.11122017 and other consequential relief against one Sumithra, Kumari.Harshitha and Smt.R.Sharada. The defendant NO.3 i.e., one Sharada appeared and filed her written statement in the said suit. So the adjudication of right, title, interest of the parties over schedule premises pending for consideration by competent court of law. Now the documents placed by both parties it appears that there was a two properties in the spot, the present plaintiff purchased one property of site No.11A, eastern side and another property towards western side purchased by one Sharada. The burden on plaintiff heavily before this court to prove jural relationship between plaintiff and defendant. It is pertinent to take admission of PW1 ಯಗರಶಮತನತ ಸನಮತ ತ ಮತನತ ಇನಕನಬಬ ಬಡಗ ದರ ನಗರಜನನಗ ಬಡಗ ಕರರನ ಪತ ತ ಬರದನಕಕಟಟಲಲ. ಸಕ ಸಸತತ ಮಕಕವಗ ಬಡಗ ಕರರನಮಡಕಕರಡದವ ಎರದನ ಹರಳನತತರ. ಸನಮತ ,ತ ನಗರಜ ಮತನತ ಯಗರಶ ನನನ ಬಡಗದರರನ ಎರದನ ತಕರರಸನವ ಯವದರ ದಖಲ ನನನ ಬಳ ಇಲಲ ಎರದರ ಸರ .
16. DW1 at length cross examined by plaintiff, but as far as jural relationship is concerned, nothing has been elicited from DW1 since DW1 has categorically denied the ownership of plaintiff over suit schedule premises and jural relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant. To the contrary, he produced ExD2 and 3, on perusal of ExD3, it appears that he was tenant under one Sharada to the property ಬರಗಳಕರನ 560073 ನಗಸರದಪ ಅರಚ ವದಪನಗರ 4 ನರ ಮನಖಪ ರಸತ ಸಸರಟಮರರರಸ ಕ ಲಮನರಬಗ ಕಟಟರನವ ಕಟಟಡದಲರನವ ಮನಗಳ ಪಸಕ 1 ನರ ಅರತಸತನಲರನವ ಉತತರದ ಕಡಗ ಸಕ ಬಗಲರನವ ಮನಯಲ 1 ರಕಮನ, 1 ಹಲ, ಅಡಗ ಮನ ಜರಟ ಬಚಶಲನ ಮನ , ಪ ಚಶಕತ ಹಗಕ ನರರನ (ಸರಪ) ಸಲಬಪ ಇರನವ ಆರ ಸಸ ಛವಣಯನಳಳ ಒರದನ ಶಚಲಯ, ವದನ ಪರರರನಮನಯನ ಈ ಬಡಗ ಕರರನ ಪತ ತಕಕ ಒಳಪಟಟರನತತದ .
17. Further on perusal of ExD2, schedule details indicates that ಬರಗಳಕರನ ಉತತರ ತಲಕಕನ ಯಶವರತಪರ ಹಕರಬಳ ದಸರಹಳಳ ಗಪಮದ ಭಕ ಪರವತನರ ಆಗರನವ ಅಸಸಮರಟ31 ನರ ಸರಖಪಯ ಪಸಕ 48 ನರ ಸರಖಪಯ ಖತಯಗರನವ ಎಕರ 2 ಎಕರ 37 ಗನರಟ ಜಮರನನಲ ವರಗಡಸರನವ ನವರಶನಗಳ ಪಸಕ 11 ಎ ಸರಖಪಯ ಹಲ ಬಬಹತ ಬರಗಳಕರನ ಮಹ ನಗರ ಪಲಕಯ 39 ನರ ವಪಪತಗ ಒಳಪಟಟರನವ 11 ಎ ಪವದರರ ಭಗದ ಸಸತತಗ ಚಕನ ಕ ಬರದತ ಪವರಕಕ ಹಳಳ ಪಶಶಮಕಕ 11 ಎ ಸರಖಪಯ ನವರಶನ ಉಳಕ ಟದ.ಸ ಸನಮತ ತ ರವರ ಸಸತನತ ಉತತರಕಕ ಹಳಳ ದ ಹಲ 30 ಅಡ ರಸತ ದಕಣಕಕ 11 ಎ ಸರಖಪಯ ಪವರದರ ಭಗದ ನವರಶನವಗದನ ಈ ಮದಪ ಇರನವ ಪವರ ಪಶಶಮ 30. 48:2 (ಮಕವತನತ ಪಲಸ ನಲವತತರಟನ ಸಬ ಎರಡನ ) ಅಡಗಳನ ಮತನತ ಉತತರ ದಕಣ 40 +0/2 (ನಲವತನತ ಪಲಸ ಸಕನನ ಸಬ ಎರಡನ} ಟ 780 ಚದರ ಅಡಗಳನ ಅಳತಯನಳಳ ನವರಶನ ಮತನತ ಇದರಲ ಕಟಟರನವ ಆರನ ಅಡಗಳನ ಒಟನ ಚದರ ಅಡಗಳನ ಅಳತಯನಳಳ ಆರ ಸಸ ಛವಣಯ ಮನ ಸಸತನತ ಇಟಟಗ ಮತನತ ಸಮರಟನರದ ಕಟಟದಸ ನ ದ ರಡಆಕಕಡನಲವಳಳ ಹಗಕ ವದನ ಕಟಕ ಬಗಲನಗಳನ ಕಡನಮರದರದ ಮಡದನ ಪ ತಸಕಯರ ವರನವ ಮನ ಸಸತನತ ಈ ಶನದದ ಕ ತಯ ಪತ ತಕಕ ಒಳಪಟಟರನತತದ.
18. Further it is pertinent to appreciate sale deed dated 412 2017 which is marked as ExP1 the schedule details of the said sale deed bounded as follows: ಪಪಡಪ ಕಲವವರ ಬರಗಳಕರನ ಉತತರ ತಲಕಕನ ಯಶವರತಪರ ಹಕರಬಳ ಹಲ ಬಬಹತ ಬರಗಳಕರನ ಮಹ ನಗರ ಪಲಕಯ ಪ ಪಕರ 39 ನರ ವಡರಗ ಸರರರನವ ದಸರಹಳಳ ಗಪಮದ ಸವರ ನರ 31 ನರ ನರಬರನಲರನವ ಜವನರನನನ ನ ದನರಕ 23101990 ರಲ ಬರಗಳಕರನ ಲ ಧಕರಯವರರದ ಸರಖಪ ಡಬಎಸ ಎಎಲ ಎನ ಎಸ ಆರ (ಎನ) 178/198990 ನರ ಜಲ ನರಬರನ ಅಧಕಬತ ಜಪನ ಪತ ತದ ಮಕಲಕ ಹಕರಡಸರನವ ಆದರಶದರತ ವಸತ ಉದಶಕಕಗ ಭಕ ದ ಹಲ ಪರವತನರಯಗ ವರಗಡಸರನವ ನವರಶನಗಳ ಪಸಕ 48 ನರ ನರಬರಗ ಖತಯಗದನ ಬಬಎರಪ ಪ ಪಕರ 2073 ನರ ನರಬರಗ ಖತಯಗರನವ ವದಪನಗರದಲರನವ ಸಸಟನರ 11 ಎ (ಹನಕನರದನ ಎ ) ನರ ನರಬರನಳಳ ಮನ ಸಹತವದ ಸಸತತಗ ಚಕನ ಕ ಬರದ ತ ಪವಕಕರ ಖಲ ಜಗ ಮತನತ ಹಳಳ ಪಶಶಮಕಕ 11 ನರ ನರಬರ ನವರಶನ ಉತತರಕಕ ಹಳಳ ದಕಣಕಕ 300 ಅಡ ರಸತ ಈ ಮಧಪ ಇರನವ ಪವರ ಪಶಶಮ ತ (45 + 45) /2 (ನಲವತತಬದನ ಪಲಸನಲವತತಬದನ ಸಬಎರಡನ ) ಅಡಗಳನ ಉತತರ ದಕಣ ( 40 +0) /2 ( ನಲವತನತ ಪಲಸಸಕನನ ಸಬಎರಡನ ) ಟ 900 ಚದರ ಅಡಗಳನ . ಈ ರರತ ಅಳತ ಮತನತ ಚಕನ ಅಡಗಳನ ಒಟನ ಕ ಬರದಗಕಳಪಟಟ ನವರಶನ ಹಗಕ ಸದರ ನವರಶನದಲ ಕಟಟರನವ 10 (ಹತನತ ) ಚದರ ಆರಸಸ ಛವಣ ಯನಳಳ ಮಸಯಕ ಟಸಲಕ ನಲಹಸನವಳಳ ಸಮರಟ ಮತನತ ಇಟಟಗಗಳರದ ಕಟಟದ ಗಕರಡ ಕಡನ ಮರದ ಬಗಲನ ಮತನತ ಕಟಕಗಳನಳಳ ಎಲ ಲ ರರತಯ ನಗರರಕ ಸಲಭಪಗಳರನವ ಮತನತ ವದನ ಪ ಚಶಕತ ಸಕಯರ ವರನವ ಮನ ಸಹತವದ ಸಸತನತ ಈ ಶನದದ ಕ ತಯ ಪತ ತಕಕ ಒಳಪಟಟರನತತದ.
19. On meticulous perusal of both boundaries and schedule of ExP1 and D2 it apparently appears there is two properties situated in the spot. PW1 also clearly admitted during course of cross examination by admitting ExD1 there is two properties situated one for extent of 900 sq.ft. and another property for 486.50 sq.ft. The admission given by PW1 already stated supra. Therefore need not repeat the same here under. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, it appears that the present defendant was not tenant under plaintiff he was tenant under one Smt.Sharada as per ExD3, on the other hand, no documentary proof from the side of plaintiff to substantiate his plaint averments to show before this court that the present defendant was tenant under him and they paying rent, other tenants also paying rent to plaintiff, nothing has been placed by the plaintiff. It is settled principle of law plaintiff has to stand on his own legs, not on the legs of others. He has to prove his own case by adducing oral or documentary evidence and proving the case. In the instant case the plaintiff has miserably failed to stand on his case and even failed to prove his allegations and claim. He also failed to show as to why decree shall be passed in his favour. During course of argument, the counsel for plaintiff placed reliance on Apex court decisions, this court meticulously gone through the facts of that cases the case between Dahiben Vs Arvind bhai Kalyanji Bhanusali 2020 (7) SCC 366 (DB) Supreme Court of India. This case pertaining to rejection of plaint if grounds madeout in subclause (a) to (e) u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC. The conduct of plaintiff relevant for consideration. Another decision relied by plaintiff Prem Prakash Gupta Vs Sanjay Agarwal High Court of Delhi at Delhi 2018 (0) Supreme (DEL) 981. In this case Hon'ble Delhi High court discussed about unregistered deed of gift right, title and scope of said unregistered deed of gift and also discussed about Section 34 and 41 of Specific relief Act for the relief of recovery of possession. Further in case between Boorugu Mahadev and Sons and another Vs Sirigiri Narasingrao and another 2016 (3) SCC 343 DB Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In this case wherein Apex court discussed landlord tenant relationship when question arose burden lies on petitioner in proving their ownership on the basis of sale deed if he succeeded then would be on respondent to prove their case in defence. Har Narain dead by LRs Vs Mamchand dead by LRs 2010(13) SCC 128 DB Supreme Court of India wherein Apex court discussed about Section 47 and Sec.17 of registration Act fiction of relation back of registered document to date of its execution and Section 54 of TP Act about sale deed. Fiction not applicable to deed of sale of immovable property before its actual registration. Appolo Zipper India Ltd., Vs W.New man company Ltd., 2018 (6) SCC 744 (DB) Supreme court of India wherein Apex court discussed attornment by tenant old tenancy continues this attornment can be proved by several circumstances including conduct of tenant and proof in eviction petition under rent laws need not be like that required in proving title suit and in case of tenants failure to raise objection to quit notice, including ownership of suit premises of person who issued notice at earliest available opportunity objection will be deemed to have been waived as per section 109 of TP Act. In an eviction suit filed by the landlord against the tenant under the rent laws when the issue of title over the tenanted premises is raised, the landlord is not expected to prove his title like what he is required to prove in a title suit. In other words, the burden of proving the ownership in an eviction suit not the same like a title suit. Sheikh Noor and another Vs Sheikh G.M. Ibrahim dead by Lrs 2003 (7) SCC 321 (DB) Supreme Court of India wherein Apex court discussed about rule of estopple and right of transferee landlord to recover pre transfer arrears as rent if there is a assignment of rent due would the transferee landlord be entitle to recover the same from the tenant arrears of rent. Bismilla B.dead by LRs Vs Mazed Shah 2017 (2) SCC 274 (DB) Supreme Court of India wherein Apex court held that by virtue of Section 116 of Evidence Act the tenant is estopped from challenging the title of his landlord during continuance of tenancy. Once assignee/vendee proves his title to the demised property, the original tenancy devolves on the assignee/vendee and tenant/lessee by operation of law on the same terms and conditions on which it was entered into with the original landlord/lessor and continues till either modified by the parties or is determined by the landlord in accordance with law. A.Mohammed Noor and another Vs R.Sharif and another 2006 (9) SCC 215 (DB) Supreme court of India wherein Apex court discussed about section 43 of Rent control and eviction, Karnataka Rent Act 1999, the High Court holding that there was a serious dispute as to the title of the property and the same had to be decided in a civil suit was not proper, there was a undisputed case of respondent that he was paying rent to appellant. Therefore High court was not justified in stopping the eviction proceedings by invoking Section 43 of K.R.Act. On careful scrutinizing the facts of Hon'ble Apex court the present case on hand facts are totally different. In the instant case, the present defendant denied jural relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant and also he denied ownership of other property which is claimed to be owner through sale deed by plaintiff. So in the actual facts and circumstance of this case, the decisions relied by plaintiff the principle of law laid down in the Apex court was not helpful to the case of the plaintiff. No doubt tenant has no right to questioning title of owner in continuation of tenancy. But in the instant case, there is no documentary proof to show the plaintiff was vendor of the extent of 486 sq.ft. Which is mentioned in ExD1 and there is no proof by the defendant he was tenant under K.B.Sumithra for the property the extent 486 which is mentioned in ExD1. The defendant clearly got admission from the mouth of PW1 there is a two properties at spot as per ExD1 he purchased 900 sq.ft. Constructed building from his vendor, another property extent 486.50 sq.ft.was situated near to 900 sq.ft property. Further PW1 admitted during course of cross examination - 1705 ಚದರ ಅಡಗ ನನನ ಖತ ಮಡಸಕಕರಡಲಲ ನಡ 1 ರಲ 486 ಎರದನ ಬರದರನವ ಕಟಟಡಕಕ ನನನ ಖತ ಮಡಸಕಕರಡದನ ಮತನತ ನಯಮತವಗ ಕರದಯ ಕಟನ ಟ ತತದನ.
20. But plaintiff has not produced before this court he was owner of total extent of 1386 sq.ft constructed area as mentioned in ExD1. So as discussed detailed supra, the plaintiff failed in proving before this court regarding jural relationship between plaintiff and defendant as landlord and tenant over suit shedule premises. Therefore plaintiff is not entitle to get suit relief. Hence this court answered point No.1 in the Negative.
21. Point No.2 to 4: In view of my answer given to points No.1 in the negative, point No.2 to 4 does not survive for consideration.
22. Point NO.5: As a result of my foregoing reasons and the discussions as stated above, the suit of the plaintiffs succeeds and deserves to be dismissed. In view of the discussions made supra, I proceed to pass the following :
: ORDER : The suit of plaintiff is hereby dismissed as same is not maintainable, since the plaintiff has failed to prove the jural relationship between the parties as averred in the plaint.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer through online computer, transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 22nd day of February 2022) (R.MAHESHA) XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & A.C.M.M. BENGALURU.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of portion of house property bearing NO.11/A, 1st floor, 4th main road, Vidyanagara, in front of St.Maries school, Nagasandra post, Dasarahalli village, Bengaluru560 073, consisting of on hall, a room, kitchen, common bath room and toilet, with all civil amenities.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS PW1: Venkata Reddy LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS Ex.P1: Sale deed Ex.P2: Certificate Ex.P3: Katha extract Ex.P4: Tax paid receipt Ex.P5 : Legal notice Ex.P6: Postal receipt Ex.P7: Postal cover LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT DW1 : Yogesh T.D. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Ex.D1 : Sketch Ex.D1 (a) : Portion of the sketch Ex.D1(b) : Three ft. passage in sketch Ex.D2 : Certified copy of sale deed Ex.D3 : Original lease deed (R.MAHESHA) XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & A.C.M.M. BENGALURU.