Adverse possession requires hostile possession, and a tenant cannot contest the landlord's title while seeking the benefit of continued tenancy.

M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendant's second appeal against the lower Appellate Court's judgment and decree decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for title to the suit schedule properties and also Ordering mesne profits of Rs. 27-00 for the three years preceding the date of filing of the suit at the rate of 12 annas per month.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff's case in the trial court was that he was the owner of the suit schedule property consisting of two houses bearing V. P. C. No. 148 and 146 of Kanaginhal village as also the open site situated in the said village having purchased the same from one Ramasingappa Pulanekar (since deceased ). Subsequently, he leased the same to the 1st defendant on a monthly rent of 0-75 paise for a period of one year under a rent note. The rent note was renewed up to the end of 1946 and thereafter, the respondent having confidence in the appellant-defendant allowed her to continue as a tenant collecting rent at the same ra,te without any further rent notes. But, after the establish, ment of Village Panchayat in h,is village, he filed an application to have his name entered as the owner of the schedule properties which was resisted by the 1st defendant-appellant on the ground that she was the owner and that her name should be entered in the records of the Panchayat. Therer upon the petitioner did not receive any rents thereafter. In those circumstances, 6n 23-9-1963 he issued a legal notice by which the tenancy of the 1st appellant was terminated. He received a reply dated 27-9-1963 through which she denied the title of the plaintiff making false allegations. In these circumstances he prayed in the suit for declaration of his title to the suit schedule properties and also prayed for a decree for arrears of rents for three years immediately preceding the date of filing of the suit and also for possession of the schedule properties. The plaintiff had also alleged that Defendant-1 had sub-leased the property to Defendant-2 in the suit.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 1, in her written statement, contended that she had purchased the suit schedule properties in the name of the plaintiff and from the date of purchase she had continued to reside in the suit property in her own right and that she was not aware under what circumstances she had affixed her thumb impression to the rent notes. She had also staged, that she had no,t sub-let the, premises to the 2nd defendant; that her hea 1th was not good and therefore, to look- after her the 2nd defendant was residing there. She had also put up the plea that even as admitted by the plaintiff since the rent note ended for the period ending December, 1946 she was in adverse possession of the suit properties from tha,t date and therefore had perfected her title to. the suit properties and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree prayed for by him either in respect of title, possession or mesne profits-

( 4 ) ON such pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as seven issues. The trial Court held that the 1st defendant had failed to prove that she, was the benami owner of the suit properties. 11 also held that the plaintiff had not proved that the 1st defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff. But, the Court held that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule properties. It also held tha (t the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession for 12 years prior to the date of filing of the suit. The trial Court also found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that Defendant- 1 had continued as tenant in terms of S. 116 of the Transfer of Property act. It further held that the defendant had failed to prove that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant- similarly, it also held that Defendant-2 had not set up any title by adverse possssion. The suit came to be dismissed on the ground that the suit was barred by time, the plaintiff having lost possession of the suit schedule property for more than 12 years and the suit having been not filed wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document