The main legal point established is that the rights of a lessee do not merge upon purchasing the property, and the lessee can recover possession of their share through a partition suit.

JUDGMENT

Nataraj Rangaswamy, J. - This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 27.07.1985 passed by the Principal Munsiff at Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada, in O.S.No.143/1980 and the concurring Judgment and Decree dated 03.12.2005 passed by the Second Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mangalore, in R.A.No.68/1985. The Courts below directed the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of easy understanding, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, while the respondents are the legal representatives of the plaintiff before the Trial Court.

3. Before the facts of the case are considered, it is relevant to note that the suit in O.S.No.143/1980 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the Judgment and Decree dated 27.07.1985 which was challenged in R.A.No.68/1985. The First Appellate Court in terms of the Judgment and Decree dated 26.11.1990 allowed the appeal. Later, the Judgment and Decree dated 26.11.1990 in R.A.No.68/1985 was challenged by the legal representatives of the plaintiff before this Court in R.S.A.No.555/1991 which was allowed in terms of the Judgment and Decree dated 03.06.1998 and the appeal was remitted to the First Appellate Court with a direction to secure the opinion of a handwriting expert as to whether the signatures found on Ex-P19 belonged to the defendant or not. This Court specifically held "I would like to make one thing clear if Ex-P19 is found to contain the signature of the defendant, the plaintiff must succeed and if it does not contain the signature of the defendant, then the defendant must succeed". The First Appellate Court thereafter secured a report from a handwriting expert who opined that Ex-P19 contained the signatures of the defendant. The First Appellate Court, thus dismissed the Appeal of the defendant in terms of the Judgment and Decree dated 27/01/2003. The defendant challenged the Judgment and Decree dated 27/01/2003 before this Court in R.S.A. No.432/2003 contending that the objections filed by him to the report of the hand writing expert was not considered. This Court noticed that the objections filed by the defendant was indeed not considered and thus allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the First Appellate Court to hear the defendant on the objections filed by him and to secure the expert before the Court for his evidence. The First Appellate Court secured the presence of the expert and examined him as PW.1 and based on the evidence available on record, dismissed the first appeal in terms of the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 03.12.2005. The defendant has filed this Regular Second Appeal assailing the Judgments and Decree of the Courts below decreeing the suit for ejectment of the defendant from the suit property.

4. The plaint filed in O.S.No.143/1980 (old No.78/1979) would disclose that the defendant was in occupation of a residential building situate in Sy.No.217/1A of Sangabettu village which was assigned door No.1/106A on a monthly rent of Rs.30/- payable by the 5th of every month. The defendant had executed a rent bond in favour of the plaintiff on 06.03.1978. The terms of the agreement of lease were reduced in to writing in the said rent bond and after the expiry of the contract term, the defendant continued to occupy the building as a tenant by holding over. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant by a notice dated 20.12.1978 and called upon the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the building by 06.02.1979. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant instead of complying with the notice demand, issued a false and a frivolous reply contending that he was in possession of the building since the year 1973 and that he purchased the plot in Sy.No.217/1A in terms of a sale deed dated 04.12.1978. The defendant is stated to have contended that