Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.