Bangalore District Court
Mr.Shankar S. S/O M.Subramanyam vs Mrs.Selvi.S. W/O Sarangapani @ on 1 December, 2016
C.R.P.67} Government of Karnataka
Form No. 9 TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS
(Civil)
SUITS
Title Sheet for IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES
Judgement in AT BANGALORE.
S.C.No.1033/2016
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2016
PRESENT: RAJANNA SANKANNANAVAR,
B.A., LL.B.,(Spl.)
XIII Addl. Small Cause Judge,
Bengaluru.
Plaintiff: Mr.Shankar S. S/o M.Subramanyam
43 years, R/o. No.152/32, Rani
Nilayam, 5th Main, 8th Cross,
Ganesha Block, Mahalakshmipuram,
Nandini Layout, Bengaluru-560 096.
(By pleader Sri.Raj Prabhu)
-Vs-
Defendants: Mrs.Selvi.S. W/o Sarangapani @
Prabhakar, 49 yrs, R/o.No.152/32,
5th Main, 8th Cross, Ganesha Block,
Mahalakshmipuram, Nandhini
Layout, Bengaluru -96.
Also at:
Mrs.Selvi.S. W/o Sarangapani @
Prabhakar, R/at No.34, 1st floor,
3rd Main Road, 8th Cross, Ganesha
Block, Mahalakshmipura,
Nandhini Layout, Bengaluru - 560096.
Date of Institution of the Suit: 18.06.2016
Nature of the Suit (Suit on Ejectment Suit
pronote, Suit for Declaration and
Possession Suit for injunction etc.,)
SCCH-15) 2 SC.1033/2016
Date of the commencement of 23.09.2016
Recording of the evidence:
Date on which judgment 01.12.2016
Was pronounced:
Total Duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
- 06 13
JUDGMENT
A Plaintiff has filed present suit against the defendant for directing him to quit, vacate the suit premises and deliver the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and damages sum of Rs.3000/- per month from 11.10.12 to 09.05.2016.
The case of the plaintiff's is as follows;
2. The plaintiff is absolute owner of the property bearing No.152/32, Rani Nilayam, 5th main, 8th cross, Ganesha Block, Mahalakshmipuram, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 50 ft. and North to South 30 ft. which is schedule "A" property and same is purchased from H.V.Gangappa and Krishnamurthy Represented by their GPA Holder by name M.Subramanyam. The defendant is a trespasser who has illegally occupied one of the portions of property bearing SCCH-15) 3 SC.1033/2016 No.152/32, 5th Main, 8th Cross, Ganesha Block, Mahalakshmipuram, Nandhini Layout, Bangalore measuring East-West:16.67 and North-South:12.5 ft in all total measuring 208 Sq. Ft. which is referred to as Schedule "B" property. The defendant who has been in illegal possession of the schedule property since 11.10.2012 has not been paying any damages for her possession. The rents for similar properties in and around the schedule property are more then Rs.3,000/-.
3. The plaintiff since then has been demanding the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month as damages for having utilizing the schedule "B" premises, but, the defendant has neither paid the damages nor vacated the schedule property, thus as on today is in arrears of damages for a sum of Rs.1,29,000/-, such circumstance the plaintiff has issue legal notice on 07.05.2016 to the defendant for calling upon to vacate and deliver possession of suit "B" schedule premises to the plaintiff and said notice was served on defendant on 09.05.2016, but, the defendant failed to vacate the suit property. Hence, prays to decree the suit. SCCH-15) 4 SC.1033/2016
4. After issuance of Suit summons to the defendant and same is served on her and she has appeared through her advocate and filed the written statement.
The facts of the written statement as follows
5. In the W.S. defendant has denied all averments which were mentioned in the plaint and contended that, the plaintiff and defendant here in are brother and sister the father of the plaintiff and defendant namely late M.Subramanay was GPA holder of H.V.Rangappa with respect of schedule property. But the H.V.Rangappa was died very long back and then question of purchasing the said property by the plaintiff from GPA Holder of the H.V.Rangappa does not arise. Because the late Subramany has no power to sell the suit property in favour of plaintiff as the said GPA Executed by the H.V.Rangappa has no legal sanctity. Therefore the plaintiff does not any right, title and interest over the suit property and alleged sale deed dtd.11.10.2012 is illegal and created document.
6. The father of Plaintiff and defendants namely M. Subramany expired 08.03.2014 and said M.Subramany was retired employee and he was purchased suit property SCCH-15) 5 SC.1033/2016 and constructed 9 houses of different measurements by investing his money, thus said suit property is the self acquired property of said M.Subramany. However considering financial and family difficulties of the defendant, the said Subramany has orally donated the half portion in the suit schedule property in the year 1995. In the gifted property there are three small houses have been constructed by the Subramany, in that the defendant and her family are residing in one house and other two houses have been rented out to different tenants. All the revenue records have been mutated in the name of father of defendant, this being the state of affairs and factual position the plaintiff who has no exclusive right, title and interest over the suit property has threatening the defendant and her husband and children to vacate the suit schedule property and trying to interference with the peaceful possession of the defendant, then the defendant has filed suit in O.S.No.984/213 on the file of City Civil Jude at Bengaluru. In the suit Hon"ble court has granted interim order of Temporary injunction against the plaintiffs. Now by setting up new plea the plaintiff has SCCH-15) 6 SC.1033/2016 filed this false suit after lapse of three years. Hence, defendant has prays to dismiss the suit.
7. Then the plaintiff No.1 himself has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked as Ex.P.1 to 16.
8. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
9. On pleadings of both the parties and records, the points are arise for consideration as follows;
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he has validly terminated the tenancy of defendant from the schedule premises?
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief he has sought for?
3. What order?
10. Now the findings of this Court on the above said points are as follows;
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: In the Negative
Point No.3: As per final order for
the following
REASONS
11. P O I N T No. 1 & 2:- These two points are interlink together, hence for avoiding repetition of discussion, taken up together for discussion. Whereas Plaintiff has filed present suit against the defendant for SCCH-15) 7 SC.1033/2016 relief of directing him to quit, vacate the suit premises and deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Herein the Plaintiff himself has been examined as PW-1 in lieu of examination by way of affidavit, in the affidavit reproduced averments which were made in the plaint. Firstly, P.W.1 has produced C/c of sale deed dtd. 11.10.2012, by perusing the same, it is disclosed that, the plaintiff has purchased the property bearing Municipal No. 152/32 situated at 5th main, Ganesha Block, Bangalore measuring East-West 50 feet and North-South 30, further said property is suit schedule "A" property herein, further P.W.1 has produce Holder Khatha Certificate at Ex.P.3 and Holder Khatha Extract at Ex.P.4, by perusing both documents, it's disclosed that said documents are pertaining to the suit schedule "A" property and same are standing in the name of plaintiff.
12. Now, the say of plaintiff is that, The defendant is a trespasser and he has illegally occupied the portions of suit schedule "A" property measuring East-West:16.67 and North-South:12.5 ft in all total measuring 208 Sq. Ft. which is Schedule "B" property and defendant has been in SCCH-15) 8 SC.1033/2016 illegal possession of the schedule "B" property since 11.10.2012, further there is pleading in the plaint as the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff. Thus, on looking to pleading of plaint and on looking oral evidence of P.W.1, it is clearly disclosed that, the plaintiff and defendant are not come under the definition of land lord and tenant, as such they are not land lord and tenant, more particularly defendant is not tenant under the plaintiff, under such circumstance this court has not got jurisdiction to try this suit. Further, when this court has not got jurisdiction to try the present suit, then the question for consideration as whether plaintiff has complied or not the sec.106 of T.P.Act does not arise. Under such circumstances, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as claimed in the suit. Hence this court held the answer in Point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
13. Point No.3 :- In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following ORDER The suit of the plaintiff's is hereby dismissed with cost.
SCCH-15) 9 SC.1033/2016
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced in the Open court by me on this the 1st day of December 2016) (RAJANNA SANKANNAVAR), XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff PW.1 - Shankar.S List of exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiff Ex.P1 Registered Sale deed Ex.P2 Reply Ex.P3 Khatha certificate Ex.P4 Khatha extract Ex.P5 Notice copy Ex.P6 Postal acknowledgement Ex.P7 FIR with complaint Ex.P8 Wound certificate Ex.P9 Final report Ex.P10 Complaint copy Ex.P11 Endorsement Ex.P12 Notice dated 07.05.2016 Ex.P13 Postal receipts Ex.P13(a) Postal receipts Ex.P14 Postal acknowledgement Ex.P15 Photos 5 in no.s Ex.P15(a) CD Ex.P16 Tax paid receipts List of witnesses examined for defendant
- None -
List of exhibits marked on behalf of defendant
- NIL -
(RAJANNA SANKANNANAVAR) XIII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes,Bangalore.