This appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad (lower appellate court) in R.A.No.187/2015 (Old No.55/2012) whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2012 passed by the III Addl. Civil Judge, Dharwad (trial Court) in O.S.No.653/2008 has been confirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.653/2008 against the defendant for possession and mesne profits in respect of property bearing No. CTS No. 188/A/LB measuring 278 sq. yards situated at Line Bazaar, Dharwad, contending that one Hanuman Prasad Shukla gifted the suit property along with other properties in favour of father of plaintiff No.1 namely, Ramachandra Pujar under registered gift deed dated 07.02.1981; that in the partition, among the joint family members of plaintiff No.1, the suit property was allotted to plaintiff No.1.

4. The plaintiffs further contended that the heirs of late Parashuram Chidambar namely, Vasantibai and others surrendered their lease hold rights in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of properties bearing No. 192/7E, 192/1A/1A/1 on 22.11.2007; that Omprakash Balaram Tiwari surrendered lease hold rights in respect of the properties bearing CTS No.189/2A/1, 192/7G, 192/1A/7, 192/1A/11, 192/2B and 189/1 on 19.11.2007. It was further averred that the defendant is in possession of the suit property as tenant on rental of Rs.45/- per month; that they have issued notice dated 08.07.2008 terminating the tenancy but he failed to vacate the premises and hence plaintiffs have filed the suit for possession and mesne profit.

5. The defendant filed his written statement refuting the plaint averments contending inter-alia that the plaintiffs have no right over the schedule property. He denied the gift as well as surrender of tenancy rights as contended in the plaint; that the 2nd plaintiff is a builder and hence had filed the suit to seek possession; that necessary parties are not impleaded in the suit. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. The plaintiff No.2 examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 31 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31. The defendant did not lead any oral or documentary evidence. The trial court decreed the suit with costs directing the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs within 60 days. The defendant being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, preferred an appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad, in R.A.No.55/2012 which was transferred to the court of District Judge, Dharwad (renumbered as R.A.No.187/2015). The lower appellate court by judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016 dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Lower appellate court, the defendant is in regular second appeal.

7. Sri. Murugendra Tubake, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant assailing the impugned judgment and decree would contend that Section 9 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964, (for short ‘the Act’) contemplates that a suit cognizable by the Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of Small Causes Court by which the suit is triable. It is not in dispute that the Act applies to Dharwad town. The trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The lower appellate court ought to have set aside the judgment and decree on this ground. The judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court without the jurisdiction is nullity in the eye of law. In the case on hand, the suit was triable exclusively by the Court of Small Causes but filed in the Regular Civil Court which had no right to entertain the suit. The plaintiffs have failed to prove their case in the manner known t