Bangalore District Court
Mr. R.Jayaprakash vs Sri. Paneer Selvan Williams on 30 October, 2021
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXIII ADDITIONAL COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH25)
Present: Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI
B.A., L.L.B., L.L.M.
Dated this the 30th day of October 2021
S.C.No.2340/2011
Plaintiff/s : Mr. R.Jayaprakash
S/o Sri. Ranganathan
Aged about 44 years,
R/at No.44, Ashirwad Colony,
1st Main, 4th - A Cross,
Horamvi Road, Banasawadi,
Bangalore - 560 043.
(By Sri.V. Sudhakar, Advocate.)
Defendant/s : Sri. Paneer Selvan Williams
S/o Sri. George Williams,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at Flat NO.A2,
Kiran Apartment Ashirwad colony,
Horamavu, Bangaluru - 560 043.
(By Sri.V.J.Benjamine, Advocate.)
Date of institution of the suit: 06.08.2011
Nature of the suit (suit on pronote,
suit for declaration and possession
suit for injunction etc.): Ejectment
2 SC 2340/2011
SCCH-25
Date of commencement of
recording of the evidence: 19.04.2013
Date on which the judgment
is pronounced : 30.10.2021
Total duration: Years Month/s Days
10 02 24
XXIII Addl. Judge
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed for ejectment, rent of Rs.15,000/ for May 2010 and future damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/ per month till vacation of the schedule premises by the defendant and cost of the suit.
2. The case of the Plaintiff in brief is that, the defendant alongwith his wife Mrs.Louelle May Williams were the joint owners of the immovable property bearing Flat NoA 2 on the first floor of the Kiran Apartments, constructed on site No.7, H.L.Khatha No179 of Horamavu village, K.R. Puram 3 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, which is schedule property. On 9.4.2010 the plaintiff purchased the schedule property from the defendant and his wife through registered sale deed dated 09.04.2010 and he was put in possession of the schedule property and also handed over all the documents of title. As the defendant could not arrange alternative suitable accommodation, defendant requested the plaintiff to allow him to continue in the schedule property till 30.4.2010 and under an MOU dated 09.04.2010 allowed the defendant to continue as a tenant in the schedule premises for a short period w.e.f. 1.5.2010 on a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/ and a refundable Security Deposit of Rs.2,00,000/ even though running rate of rent in the locality for similar accommodation is more than Rs.25,000/ but keeping in view of the security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/ as agreed to be paid by the defedant immediately, the rent was fixed at a lower rate. As the defendant was to go abroad for his Church related activities, plaintiff authorized his office Manager and Accountant Mrs.Renuka Reddy, under intimation to the defendant by E 4 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 Mail dated 25.4.2010 to collect Security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/ and advance rental amount. But when the said employee approached the defendant at that time the defendant instead of giving amount to her driven her out of the schedule flat and prevailed upon the local police to threaten her with false allegations. He is in urgent need of the schedule premises for his bonafide use and occupation as the present accommodation with the plaintiff is going for sale or mortgage for meeting his urgent financial commitments. Request by him to vacate and hand over the schedule premises not yielded results. Therefore he got issued legal notice dated 14.5.2010, which was sent to the defendant by RPAD as well as under certificate of posting calling upon the defendant to quit and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises within 15 days which received by the defendant on 16.04.2010 but even then the defendant not complied with it. Therefore prayed for decree as sought.
3. In response to summons issued by this court, the Defendant appeared through his counsel and filed the written 5 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 statement submitting that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as wife of defendant is not included as they being joint and absolute owner in possession of suit property purchased from Mrs.Geetha S.V. W/o Mr.R.Vishwanath through registered sale deed dated 27.01.2017. The cunning and shrewd plaintiff by showing two properties has mentioned Rs.11,23,000/ in the sale deed in collusion with the authorities of SubRegistrar. The plaintiff only negotiated with the defendant and his wife for said purchase and received money from them number of times and they have no direct contact with vendor Mrs.Geetha S.V. The plaintiff with an ill intention also finished the transation of the sale deed before the SubRegistrar showing Mrs. S.V. Geetha as the owner of the said property and they were put into physical possession of the suit schedule property in the month of September 2007. The Defendant along with his wife are presently the absolute owner in possession of the suit property i.e. immovable property bearing Flat No.A2 on the first floor of Kiran Apartments constructed on the composite property bearing 6 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 Site No.7, Khatha No.179 of Horamavu Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk now under BBMP limits, Bangalore with a super built area of 1450 Sq. ft. with mosaic flooring with one open car parking space in the ground and car parking space of 400 Sq. ft. of land in the same property in land Sy. No.131/3 of Horamavu Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore. This property is sold by Smt.Geetha S.V. the previous owner of the suit property for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.11,23,000/ through a registered sale deed on 27.01.2007. The said consideration amount was not discussed nor negotiated with the said Mrs.S.V.Geetha, the Plaintiff who had already received a huge money from the Defendant, got executed the sale deed in favor of the Defendant and his wife. They denied the averments of Para No.3 of the plaint as false. Further submitted that, the plaintiff has not at all paid the entire agreed consideration to them. The Plaintiff and his wife issued some ones cheque to him fraudulently and cheated the defendant without paying any consideration amount for the said property and hence the 7 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 sale deed dated 09.04.2010 is null and void. The Plaintiff during the year 2005 transferred to Indiranagar Branch of the Mathodist Church and at that time he came in contact to the defendant saying that he is a builder and constructed apartment in the name of 'Kiran Apartment' in Aashirvad Colony, Horamavu Road, Bangalore. Further also told that he is constructing an independent church at Kalkere in Channasandra, Bangalore and looking for a priest to perform all religious rights of Christian community. Further offered to sell one of the flat in said apartment and requested him to pay the money whenever he had and requested to pay Rs.15,00,000/. The plaintiff demanded and received an amount of Rs.8,00,000/ during the year 2006 vide cheque bearing No:339662 of Vijaya Bank of Rs.1,00,000/ on 20.3.2006 and an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ vide cheque bearing No:362508 of Vijaya Bank of Rs.2,00,000/ on 20.03.2006 and another amount of Rs.2,00,000/vide cheque bearing No:100599 of HDFC Bank, dated 20.03.2006 and another amount of Rs.2,87,000/ vide cheque bearing 8 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 No:863579 of HDFC Bank dated 16.03.2017, another amount of Rs.5,00,000/ vide cheque bearing No:862595 of HDFC Bank dated 05.11.2007 and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/ vide cheque bearing No:339665 dated 22.12.2007 of Vijaya Bank and therefore the defendants received an amount of Rs.8,87,000/ during the year 2007 from the plaintiffs. The defendants received another amount of Rs.1,50,000/ on 28.2.2008 vide cheque bearing No:863597 of HDFC Bank and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/ on 28.01.2009 vide cheque bearing No:025429 from the plaintiffs and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/ by cash on 28.01.2009 and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/ by cash during the year May2005 from the defendant and the plaintiff demanded and received an amount of Rs.21,37,000/ from him in total. During that time the plaintiff offered him in to work as a priest in a Church constructed by him by name 'Church of Hope' and also lured him for an accommodation to get registered a flat in Kiran Apartment when it was a ready and he demanded and received huge money from him. He was already working as a priest in 9 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 a very Big international Organization of Methodist Church, was carried away by the words of plaintiff who was forcing him to join his church and he requested and told the plaintiff that he can joint his church only after getting relieving orders from the Bishop of Methodist Church, after getting relieved from the said organization he joined the 'Church of Hope' belonging to the plaintiff and he commenced his work in the said church. The plaintiff after the said fraudulent sale deed was never put into any possession of the schedule property. They were in physical possession and enjoyment of the schedule property even before getting executed sale deed of the schedule property from Mrs.S.V.Geetha in the name of defendant and his wife. He denies the averments made in para 4 of the plaint. They never entered into an MOU with the plaintiff at any time, but on the other hand as per the request of the plaintiff when the defendant presented the said forged three cheques for encashing to his Banker HDFC Bank on Kasturba Road the same was dishonoured. They shocked and surprised, when he approached Vijaya Bank and requested for giving details of the 10 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 person whose cheques were given by the plaintiff to them, the Bank officials refused to give any details, therefore they landed in great difficulty and apprehended from the conduct of plaintiff as he has many criminal cases against him. The plaintiff sent Email and also a legal notice and also called him on mobile and intimidated criminally to him and tried to throw him out of the schedule property and therefore they filed O.S.4124/2010 for injunction. The plaintiff cheated them in such a way by saying that the suit schedule property has to be transferred on his name and thereafter when the documents are created they shall be pledged before the financier and after pledging an amount of Rs.24,37,000/ shall be paid to the defendant and defendant believing his words they executed sale deed on 09.04.2010 for the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and after execution of sale deed the plaintiff gave three cheques in favour of defendant of Vijaya Bank vide cheque bearing No:374337 dated 09.04.2010 of Rs.8,00,000/ and another cheque bearing No:374338 of Rs.8,00,000/ of Vijaya Bank dated 10.04.2010 and another cheque of 11 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 Rs.8,37,000/ of Vijaya Bank bearing cheque No:374339 dated 11.04.2010. In which the hand writing written in the cheque was of the wife of the plaintiff and believing the words of the plaintiff they presented the cheques to his banker HDFC Bank Kasturba Road, Bangalore, but to the shock and surprise all the three cheques were dishonoured and said bank issued endorsement to him. When the plaintiff alongwith his rowdy elements tried to evict him and his wife unlawfully using force the defendant and his wife approached the court and got interim order. He also filed criminal case before 11 th ACMM, Bangalore, against the plaintiff and his wife in PCR.58/2010. As the plaintiff started calling himself as the owner of the church building and thereby he started interfering and obstructing into the church affairs and also in the affairs of performing religious activity as a Chief Priest of the said church, the plaintiff alongwith rowdy elements also obstructed the visiting of the church by other members and he stopped some of the members from coming to the church and this act of the plaintiff offended them and hence he resigned on 12 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 8.4.2010 after giving charge to the three elderly members of the church. He also denies the averments of para Nos.5 to 7 and also other averments which are traversed against them and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The Plaintiff in order to prove his case got examined himself as PW.1 and produced 6 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.6 and got examined one witness Mrs.Renuka Reddy as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.7 in the cross examination of DW.1. On the other side the defendant got examined himself as DW.1 and produced 13 documents as per Exs.D.1 to D.13 (Exs.D.1 to D.5 are got marked in the cross examination of PW.1) and got examined witness namely Geoffrey as DW.2.
5.. Now the points that arise for the consideration of this court are as under;
13 SC 2340/2011
SCCH-25
1. Whether Plaintiff proves that there exists a landlord and tenant relationship between himself and defendant?
2. If so, whether the plaintiff further proves that there is termination of tenancy as required u/Sec.106 of T.P.Act?
3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought in the plaint?
4. What order or decree?
6. Both the counsel have filed written arguments and I have perused the same and also perused the entire materials available on record.
7. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence on record this court answers on the above points as here under:
Point No.1 : In the negative,
Point No.2 : In the negative,
Point No.3 : In the negative,
Point No.4 : As per the final
order for the following:
14 SC 2340/2011
SCCH-25
REASONS
8. Point No.1: It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the property from the defendant and his wife for valid consideration through registered sale deed and as the defendant did not get suitable accommodation immediately after sale and hence entered into MOU and continued as tenant for short period but instead of paying rent and security deposit as agreed falsely claimed to be owner of the suit property and even after issuance of notice the defendant did not comply the demand. The defendant denies the case of the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff by playing fraud got execution of sale deed without payment of consideration amount and in this regard they filed criminal complaint and suit for injunction and there is no any landlord and tenant relationship and he has not executed MOU. The plaintiff in support of his case got examined himself as PW.1 and has reiterated the plaint averments in the chief affidavit and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. They are, Ex.P.1 is the sale deed, 15 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 Ex.P.2 is the Memorandum of undertaking, Ex.P.3 is the tax paid receipt, Ex.P.4 is the copy of legal notice, Ex.P.5 is the COP receipt and Ex.P.6 is the postal receipt.
9. In the crossexamination of PW.1 it is brought out that, he is doing building contractor work, he got one Apartment and two houses, his sisterinlaw/brother's wife S.V.Geetha was owner of suit property and she sold it to the defendant, from 2006 he knows the defendant, near the suit property he built a church, the alleged cheques were with regard to transaction with S.V.Geetha with regard to one site and apartment, said S.V.Geetha did not sell any other site to the defendant, he admits signature on Ex.D.1/receipt for receipt of Rs.6,00,000/ and said amount is one part payment in Rs.21,37,000/, admits his signature on Ex.D.2/copy of sale deed, admits email dated 25.4.2010 which is as per Ex.D.3, in Ex.D.3 he did not tell that he is landlord and defendant is tenant under him and also not stated about rent agreement, admits Ex.D.4 marriage photo of defendant and also admits that he has not got entered any rent agreement 16 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 with the defendant, admits Ex.D.5/trust deed, he has not produced revenue documents of suit property, he did not tell the defendant as to how much is the rent for the suit property and the defendant also did not pay rent and similarly he did not ask security deposit and and defendant did not pay said security deposit also, he did not go inside the suit property at any time, he does not remember whether he sent PW.2 to the suit property, he did not go to suit property after execution of alleged sale deed.
10. Mrs.Renuka Reddy, examined as PW.2. She deposed that she is the Manager and Accountant of the plaintiff. The defendant was the owner of the suit property which was purchased by the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 09.04.2010 for total sale consideration of Rs.15,36,000/, the schedule property forms part of Kiran Apartment which was formulated and developed by the plaintiff in the composite property owned by the plaintiff and his wife. After construction schedule property sold to one Mrs.Geetha S.V. under registered sale deed dated 12.12.2006 17 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 in turn she sold it to the defendant and his wife on 27.01.2007 and thereafter the defendant and his wife sold schedule property to the plaintiff who was put in possession of the schedule property and all documents of the schedule property. After sale at the request of defendant the plaintiff allowed defendant to continue in the schedule property under MOU executed by the defendant in her presence and plaintiff. As the plaintiff was to go abroad, he authorized her to collect the security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/ and when she went to collect said amount from the defendant, the defendant pushed her out of the schedule flat and prevailed upon the local police to threaten to implicate her in false cases to deter her. The defendant still continued to occupy the scheduled premises without payment rents and advance amount and not vacated schedule property but filed cases, the O.S.4124/2010 and PCR.No:58/2010 filed by the defendant stands dismissed. The plaintiff got issued notice on 14.5.2010 for ejection and the defendant refused to comply its terms. She admitted her signature in Ex.P.1 as per Ex.P.1(a). In the crossexamination 18 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 of PW.2 it is brought out that, she collects rents from tenants under plaintiff but she does not know their names, admits that there is no rent agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, earlier the suit property stood in the name of S.V.Geetha and thereafter the defendant alongwith his wife jointly purchased the same and since then they are residing in the suit property, she went on 9.4.2010 and demanded the deposit amount and thereafter she went to her office, on the same day she purchased a site measuring 30x40 from the wife of defendant by paying cash, she sold said site, the defendant and his wife lodged complaint before police.
11. The defendant got examined himself as DW.1 and has reiterated the averments of written statement in his examination in chief and got marked Exs.D.6 to D.13. They are Ex.D.6 is the certified copy of amended plaint in O.S.No:4470/2018 dated 29.06.2012, Ex.D.7 is the certified copy of plaint in O.S.4124/2010 dated 16.6.2010, Ex.D.8 is the certified copy of ordersheet with the order of injunction in O.S.4124/2010 dated 18.6.2010 and the order of closing the 19 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 case, Ex.D.9 is the certified copy of memo of plaintiff dated 17.2.2011, Ex.D.10 is the Certified copy of PCR filed before 11th ACMM, Ex.D.11 is the certified copy of FIR in Cr.No:302/2010, Ex.D.12 vakalath of plaintiff and his wife in O.S.No:4470/2008 and Ex.D.13 is the certified copy of cheques. In the crossexamination of DW.1 it is brought out that, the plaintiff is contractor and doing business under Jay Builders, Ex.D.1 is the receipt issued by the plaintiff for having received the advance amount towards purchase of suit property by defendant and his wife, all the consideration amount regarding suit property was handed over to the owner of the suit property at the time of registration on 27.1.2007 as per Ex.D.2, they purchased a site on 15.2.2007 at Bengaluru through the plaintiff, plaintiff constructed Church of Hope at K.Channasandra village on his own expenses, PW.2 working as accountant in the company of plaintiff, on 27.1.2007 they sold site No:58 katha number 58/82 to PW.2 for consideration of Rs.5,28,000/, on the same day they sold property in Sy.No:131/13 in favour of plaintiff for consideration amount 20 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 of Rs.15,35,000/, admits signature in Ex.P.1 but denied his signature on Ex.P.2, admits signature on Ex.P.7/postal acknowledgement dated 19.5.2010, he signed Ex.P.7 while receiving Ex.P.4 but he did not reply to it, there is no mention in Ex.P.1 about handing over of cheque by plaintiff, the cheques were issued by Silk Room Proprietor, the said CC case ended in 'B' final report, on 25.4.2010 the plaintiff sent email to him but he did not reply.
12. One witness namely Geoffrey is examined as DW.2. He has deposed that he knows the transaction of the schedule property from the beginning and thereafter, the defendant and his wife are the owners in possession of the schedule house and deposed supporting the case of the defendant. In the crossexamination it is brought out that the wife of the defendant is his sister, the defendant and his wife purchased the suit property from one Smt.Geetha on 27.1.2007, he admits that he is signatory to Exs.P.1 and P.2. 21 SC 2340/2011
SCCH-25
13. Now the documents needs to be appreciated. The Ex.P.1 is the alleged sale deed executed by the defendant and his wife in favour of plaintiff. Though the defendant admits about execution of said sale deed but submits that no consideration passed under Ex.P.1 and hence the Ex.P.1 is not completely admitted by the defendant as he contends fraud played by the plaintiff and his wife on them. The Ex.D.1 admitted by the plaintiff for having received the said amount towards purchase of schedule property in favour of defendant and his wife. The Ex.D.2 is the admitted document by the parties and as per it, it is crystal clear that the defendant and his wife purchased the schedule property from Mrs.Geetha S.V. who is none other than sisterinlaw of the plaintiff. From this it is clear that the plaintiff and defendant were known to each other from years and the plaintiff took part in sale transaction of Ex.D.2 which affirms the defence of the defendant in this regard.
14. The defendant clearly denied the execution of Ex.P.2 MOU on which the plaintiff mainly relies on. This suit 22 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 is filed for ejectment, rent and damages and as per the admitted facts there is no rent agreement between the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff mainly relies on MOU/Ex.P.2 to prove that the defendant is tenant under him and even after execution of MOU/Ex.P.2 not paid rent and security deposit as agreed in MOU/Ex.P.2 and also not executed rent agreement but claimed himself to be owner of the schedule property when he demanded for payment of rent and security deposit. Therefore, the very crucial and important document in order to entertain this suit and to grant any relief to the plaintiff if he is entitled under law then the only document which needs to be appreciated thoroughly is Ex.P.2 which defendant categorically denied for having executed it in favour of plaintiff and contends that it is created and fraudulently the plaintiff took his signature on Ex.P.2 at the time of execution of Ex.P.1 by putting some documents sheets in between the Ex.P.1/sale deed. Whether the plaintiff is the owner as per Ex.P.1 or not, to decide this issue this court is not having jurisdiction but only has jurisdiction to decide 23 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 whether there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant as claimed by the plaintiff under MOU Ex.P.2 which is denied by defendant. Though the DW.2 admits that he was signatory to the Exs.P.1 and P.2 but on perusal of Ex.P.2 no such signature of DW.2 is found.
15. On going through the Ex.P.2, it is dated 09.04.2010 between the plaintiff and defendant on the very date when the Ex.P.1 was executed between plaintiff and defendant but it is worth to note that Ex.P.2's execution not mentioned in Ex.P.1 but on the contrary the Ex.P.1 at page 7 para 17 it is clearly mentioned that the vendor have put the purchaser in vacant possession of the schedule property, why it is mentioned so even though possession was not delivered as per the plaintiff's claim is not explained and if really the Ex.P.2 was executed on the same day of Ex.P.1 then what made the plaintiff to not get it mentioned in Ex.P.1 is itself creates doubt in genuineness of Ex.P.2 document. Further, on perusal of the Ex.P.2 said document is written in two document sheets and one legal 24 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 page/sheet and even no serial numbers put to said sheets and said document sheets were purchased on the same date from the same SubRegistrar office where the Ex.P.1 alleged to have got executed. Further why the Ex.P.2 has two document sheets which purchased in the very same SubRegistrar Office at Banasawadi Senior Sub Registrar Office and why the one sheet got written in legal sheet, for this no explanation is offered in the plaint and evidence lead by the plaintiff, when this is considered that the non mentioning of Ex.P.2 in Ex.P.1, mentioning of delivery of possession in Ex.P.1 and only two documents sheets and one legal sheet in Ex.P.2, on the face of this document it is clear that it is created as rightly contended by the defendant. Despite this the strange conduct and act of the plaintiff needs to be appreciated is that though the plaintiff filed application for sending Ex.P.1, P.2 and admitted written statement of defendant for Truth Lab for examination of signatures of the defendant through hand writing expert, which application came to be allowed and report is also on record, in Ex.P.2 only two documents sheets were sent to the 25 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 Truth Lab for which even the plaintiff did not urge any prayer to send the third page of said Ex.P.2 for court commissioner/hand writing expert and the legal page/sheet i.e. third page of Ex.P.2 not sent and the report clearly shows that after examining the Exs.P.1 and P.2 (two pages of documents sheets) two questioned signatures alongwith admitted written statement of defendant the signatures appearing on them are one and the same. The third sheet of ExP.2 which is in legal sheet not even sent to the court commissioner/hand writing expert for examination and this clearly shows that the complete Ex.P.2 has not been sent for examination by the handwriting expert and hence the opinion of handwriting expert which is on record cannot be acceptable as said opinion given on incomplete document Ex.P.2 that by only examining signatures found in two documents sheets of Ex.P.2 and not complete document which also includes one legal sheet. Further, if for the sake of appreciation even if the said opinion of handwriting expert is considered also it supports the defence of the defendant that the said document 26 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 is created as by keeping said documents sheets in the middle of Ex.P.1 the plaintiff obtained signature of defendant by playing fraud and hence only two pages i.e. two documents sheets of Ex.P.2 were sent for handwriting expert's opinion and not sent the legal sheet which is a final page and more important page of Ex.P.2 as without said page No.3 which is in legal sheet the document Ex.P.2 is an incomplete document. Therefore, on perusal of Ex.P.2 on the face of said document itself it is clear that the said document appears to have created one to suit the claim of the plaintiff.
16. Further on perusal of the documents produced by the defendant it is clear that the defendant filed criminal case against the plaintiff for having cheated him no matter what is the end result of the said complaint. The certified copy of plaint at Ex.D6. shows that the aggrieved party filed suit seeking specific performance of contract against the plaintiff and others. Ex.D.7 shows that the defendant apprehending illegal eviction sought injunction and after undertaking by the 27 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 plaintiff the said case got closed as the plaintiff did file this case. The certified copies of cheques which are produced at Ex.D.13 and the allegations and contentions of the defendant in this regard coupled with other evidence on record i.e. cross examination of the parties and the admission it is clear that the plaintiff was in the habit of not obliging the transactions which he carried with others and no doubt it is matter of another prosecution under the criminal code and hence only conduct of the plaintiff as contended by the defendant can only be make out. Therefore on over all assessment of the entire evidence on record it is crystal clear that the Ex.P.2 was not executed by the defendant at any time but it is got created by the plaintiff only to suit his claim.
17. Therefore, from the evidence on record as the defendant strongly disputes the very relationship of landlord and tenant and hence the other aspects about execution of Ex.P.1 by the defendant or not cannot to be decided for the lack of jurisdiction to this court and the parties can agitate 28 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 the same before proper jurisdictional court and through criminal prosecution. Hence as there no existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant as claimed under Ex.P.2 and on appreciation of evidence on record between the plaintiff and defendant and hence it is held that the plaintiff has failed to prove said relationship as pleaded. Accordingly, this issue is answered in the negative.
18. Point Nos.2 and 3: As discussed above the Plaintiff has failed to prove the relationship between himself and defendant as landlord and tenant and there is dispute with regard to title of the schedule property between the parties and hence the plaintiff's claim that he did quit the tenancy of the defendant cannot be acceptable and receipt of said notice also not helpful in favor of case of plaintiff. Further when no relationship of landlord and tenant was found proved between the parties, in the absence of proof of payment of rent and denial of Ex.P.2 and proof of Ex.P.2 being created one, question of termination 29 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 u/Sec.106 of T.P. Act would not arise at all as held in the case of "Kishor Kumar Vs. Daya Thakur Das 2017 AIR CC 1362 (Raj)" and consequently the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs as sought by him in this case. Accordingly these points are answered in the negative.
19. Point No.4:
For the reasons and discussions made above and findings given on point Nos.1 to 3, this court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Office to draw decree accordingly. (Dictated to the stenographer on line, revised, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 30th day of October 2021.) (Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) XXIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.30 SC 2340/2011
SCCH-25 ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff:
PW.1 Mr. R.Jayaprakash PW.2: Mrs.Renuka Reddy
List of the documents exhibited on behalf of Plaintiff:
Ex.P.1: Sale deed Ex.P.1(a): Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.2: Memorandum of Undertaking Ex.P.3: Tax paid receipt Ex.P.4: Copy of legal notice Ex.P.5: COP receipt Ex.P.6: Postal Receipt Ex.P.7: Postal acknowledgement
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant:
D.W.1: Mr. Paneer Selvan Williams D.W.2: Mr. Geoffrey
List of the documents exhibited on behalf of Defendant:
Ex.D.1: Copy of payment receipt
Ex.D.2: Copy of sale deed
Ex.D.3: Email dated 25.4.2010
31 SC 2340/2011
SCCH-25
Ex.D.4: Marriage photo
Ex.D.5: Copy of Trust Deed
Ex.D.6: Certified copy of Amended Plaint in OS
NO.4470/2008 dated 29.06.2012
Ex.D.7: Certified copy of plaint in OS
NO.4124/2010, dated 16.06.2010
Ex.D.8: Certified copy of order sheet with the
order of injunction in OS No.4124/2010, dated 18.06.2010 and the order of closing the case Ex.D.9: Certified copy of memo of plaintiff dated 17.02.2011 Ex.D.10: Certified copy of PCR filed by the defendant and his wife against the plaintiff before the 11th ACMM at Bangalore.
Ex.D.11: Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.302/2010 Ex.D.12 Vakalath of Plaintiff and his wife in OS No.4470/2008 Ex.D.13: Certified copy of cheques.
(Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) XXIII Addl.Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.
32 SC 2340/2011
SCCH-25 30.10.2021 Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate judgment) with the following operative portion: ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Office to draw decree accordingly.
XXIII Addl. JudgeMember, MACT, Bangalore.
33 SC 2340/2011
SCCH-25
DECREE
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BANGALORE
S.C.No.2340/2011
Plaintiff/s : Mr. R.Jayaprakash
S/o Sri. Ranganathan
Aged about 44 years,
R/at No.44, Ashirwad Colony,
1st Main, 4th - A Cross,
Horamvi Road, Banasawadi,
Bangalore - 560 043.
(By Sri.V. Sudhakar, Advocate.)
Defendant/s : Sri. Paneer Selvan Williams
S/o Sri. George Williams,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at Flat NO.A2,
Kiran Apartment Ashirwad colony,
Horamavu, Bangaluru - 560 043.
(By Sri.V.J.Benjamine, Advocate.)
Claim: Suit filed on prays for directing
Defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession, costs and such other relief.
This suit coming on for final disposal before Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari, XXIII Addl. Judge, 34 SC 2340/2011 SCCH-25 Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate, for the Plaintiff and Sri/Smt. Advocate, for the Defendant.
ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
And it is further ordered and decreed that, the Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs. towards cost.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this day of 2021 REGISTRAR, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.
35 SC 2340/2011
SCCH-25 MEMORANDUM OF COST INCURRED IN THIS SUIT By the Plaintiff Defendant Court fee on plaint Court fee on power Court fee on exhibits Service of process + Postal charges Commissioner's fees Pleaders fee ________________________________________ Total of Rs. _________________________________________ Amount payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is Rs.
Decree Drafted scrutinized by Asst.REGISTRAR,
Court of Small Causes,
Decree Clerk Shirastedar Bangalore.