The court affirmed that ownership claims must be supported by documentary evidence, and the principle of preponderance of probability governs determinations of title and tenancy.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. Joshi, J.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2007 passed in O.S.No.37/2000 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Prl. JMFC, Tarikere, the defendant has approached this Court in appeal.

2. The parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are as below:

The plaintiffs-P.Ramadas Kamath and P.Ganapathi Kamath approached the trial Court seeking a relief of declaration that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule house property; for vacant possession of the same; arrears of rent accrued from September-1998 to December-1999 amounting to Rs. 6,400/- and for damages for illegal occupation of the suit premise by the defendant till the possession is handed over to them. The suit property is described to be a dwelling house with appertaining open space situated at Balehonnuru Town of B.Kanabur Village, Panchayat No.242/97-98 bounded by V.P.Road on East, building site belonging to Dayananda on West, house No.241/15 and vacant land of the plaintiffs on the North and South.

4. In the plaint, it was contended that the suit property belonged to one K.P.Mukund Prabhu and it was held by the father of the plaintiffs-Lakshmana Kamath on permanent leasehold rights. Later, the said Mukund Prabhu executed his last Will dated 16.05.1975 and a registered codicil dated 31.01.1986 bequeathing the suit schedule property and some other non-agricultural properties to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. It was alleged that the defendant is in occupation of the suit schedule house on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- and since the defendant failed to pay the agreed rent since September-1998, they were constrained to issue a legal notice dated 02.08.1999 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the defendant to vacate and handover vacant premises of suit schedule property and to pay the arrears of the rent. Despite receiving the said notice, it was neither replied nor complied by the defendant and therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit before the trial Court for the above said reliefs.

5. After service of summons, the defendant appeared before the trial Court through his counsel and filed written statement.

6. The defendant denied that father of the plaintiffs-Lakshmana Kamath was a permanent lessee of the suit schedule property and also denied that K.P.Mukund Prabhu had executed the Will or the codicil bequeathing the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. He also denied that he was the tenant in occupation of the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- and that he had defaulted in paying the rents. Inter alia, it was contended that he had replied to the notice issued by the plaintiffs. He set up a contention that the suit schedule property belonged to one T.V.Rama Rao and the defendant has taken the suit schedule property on lease from T.V.Rama Rao and his son Sathyanarayana on the basis oral agreement to pay a rent of Rs. 450/- per month, about 10 years back. It was contended that the property stood in the name of Seethamma W/o Rama Rao and she was paying the taxes through the defendant. Therefore, contending that the suit is barred by time and that the plaintiffs do not have any title to the property, sought dismissal of the suit. In para 9 of the written statement, it was contended that the defendant has acquired the title by long possession and enjoyment of the property with the consent of the real owners and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant is in the occupation of the suit schedule property on monthly tenancy of Rs. 400/-?

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant is in arrears of rent payable from Se