Back
2012 Supreme(Kar) 1158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
K.L. Manjunath, J.
Mahadev —Appellant
Vs.
M.A. Meera —Respondent
R.S.A. No. 1151 of 2012 (DEC, POSSN AND DAMAGES)
Decided on : 07-11-2012
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. V. Srinivas, for the Appellant
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of property ownership, tenant's rights, and adverse possession under the Karnataka Rent Control Act.
Headnote:
Karnataka Rent Control Act - Property Dispute - 1961, 1999 - The court discussed the ownership of the property, the rights of the tenant, and the issue of adverse possession under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit to declare herself as the absolute owner of the property and for possession and damages. The appellant, a tenant, disputed the plaintiff's title and claimed adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, declaring her as the absolute owner and directing the appellant to vacate and pay arrears of rent and damages. The lower Appellate Court partially allowed the appeal, confirming the plaintiff's ownership and directing the appellant to pay arrears of rent, but set aside the possession order.
Issues: The issues included the ownership of the property, the tenant's rights, the relief of declaration, arrears of rent, and damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiff had proven her title to the property, and the appellant's claim of adverse possession was not substantiated. The lower Appellate Court erred in setting aside the possession order.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
K.L. MANJUNATH, J.—The concurrent findings of the Courts below are called in question by the appellant in this regular second appeal.
2. The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder:
Respondent filed the suit in O.S. NO. 1046/2005 on the file of V Additional First Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Mysore, against the appellant herein to declare her as an absolute owner of the suit property and for possession and damages.
3. According to the plaint averments, one Shivagur Modaliyar was the full and absolute owner of the suit property. He died issueless. After his death, his wife Smt Tangachamma succeeded to the property and she had executed a Will in the year 1966 bequeathing the schedule property alongwith other properties in favour of Smt Shakuntala and others. On 17.4.1985, the plaintiff purchased the schedule property from the legatees of Smt Tangachamma namely Smt Janakamma, Smt Shakunthala, P. Sulochana, P.A. Krishnamswamy, P.A. Nanjundaswamy, and P.A. Narayanaswamy. Thereafter, the katha of the property was mutated in the name of the plaintiff in the office of the Corporation of the City of Mysore. The defendant was inducted into the suit schedule property as tenant under previous owner Tangachamma as per oral agreement. The plaintiff was not desirous of continuing the tenancy of the defendant as the plaintiff required entire premises including plaint schedule property for her personal use and occupation. But, the defendant continued to be in possession as a tenant. In the circumstances, she filed eviction petition under the provisi on of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, which case came to be dismissed. Thereafter, she filed a revision petition before the District Judge in view of the repealing of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and a new Act namely the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force. She constrained to issue a legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and requested the defendant to hand over possession of the property. As the defendant disputed the title of the plaintiff, the suit was filed for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. The defendant contested the case. According to him, Smt Tangachamma was the owner of the property. She had inducted one N.R. Venkatesh, as her tenant and N.R. Venkatesh in turn inducted the defendant and that he was collecting the rent at the rate of Rs.20/- per month. He has denied the execution of the sale deed in favour of Smt Shakunthala and others. According to him, he is not aware of the sale deed executed by Smt Shakunthala and others and that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. N.R. Venkatesh enjoyed the property from the date of death of Smt Tangachamma and after the death of N.R. Venkatesh, the defendant is enjoying the property and that he is in possession of the property for more than 30 years continuously, uninterruptedly and without any kind of hindrance whatsoever from anybody. Therefore, he acquired the title to the said property. In the circumstances, he requested the Court to dismiss the suit.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Court below:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, Smt Thangachamma, bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of the legatees mentioned in the Will and later on plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from Shakunthala one of the legates under the Sale Deed dated 17.4.1985?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant was inducted as a tenant into the suit schedule property under the said Thangachamma?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration that, she is the absolute owner of suit schedule property?
(4) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the quit notice that she has issued against the defendant is as per law?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the arrears of rent?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of damages?
(7) Whether the defendant proves that, he has acquired the absolute right of
