Ownership established through documentary evidence; defendant failed to prove lawful possession or title, justifying eviction.

JUDGMENT :

S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.1626/2019 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.10.2023 passed by the XLI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent – plaintiff for eviction / ejectment and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule ‘B’ immovable property was decreed in her favour against the appellant.

2. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to by their respective ranks before the Trial Court.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the defendant for ejectment / eviction directing the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule ‘B’ immovable property to the plaintiff and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the defendant, who filed his written statement, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

“1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is owner of the suit schedule–A and B properties?

2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant has forged the signature of Plaintiff and fabricated document in respect of ‘B’ schedule property?

3) Whether the Plaintiff further proves that the defendant is in unauthorized possession of ‘B’ schedule property?

4) Whether the defendant proves that he is in occupation of the ‘B’ schedule property under the lease agreement dated 21.04.2014 with the Plaintiff on refundable security deposit of Rs.8,00,000/-?

5) Whether the defendant further proves that he has invested amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for repair and modification of ‘B’ schedule property with the consent of Plaintiff ?

6) Whether the defendant proves that Plaintiff is in due of Rs.13,00,000/- towards refundable security deposit and Rs.2,50,000/- towards repair and modification of the premises as contended in Para No.10 of written statement?

7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for reliefs sought for?

8) What order or decree?”

Note “Issue No.4 as framed above does not cover the contention of the defendant regarding another lease agreement dated 21.01.2013 on a refundable security deposit of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, Issue No. 4 is re-casted in the following manner:

“Whether the defendant proves that he is in the occupation of the B – schedule property under the lease agreement dated 21.04.2014 with the plaintiff on refundable security deposit of Rs.8,00,000/- and another lease agreement dated 21.01.2013 on are fundable security deposit of Rs.5,00,000/-.

Issue No.5:- Issue No.5 as framed above does not cover the contention of the defendant that he has invested a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards fixing the wall tiles rolling shutters etc., with the consent of the plaintiff. Hence, Issue No.5 is re-casted in the following manner:

“Whether the defendant proves that he has invested a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the repair and modification of written statement A–schedule property and further proves that he has invested a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards fixing the wall tiles, rolling shutters etc., of written statement B–schedule property, which together form the suit B– schedule property with the consent of the plaintiff.

The above Issues i.e. issue Nos.4 and 5 have been recasted considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence recorded and in the exercise of the power under Order XIV Rule 5 which empower the Court to recast the issues at any stage of proceedings before passing the decree.

The recasted issues are modified in view of the pleadings of the parties and further, parties have already led evidence as if the recasted issues were already framed and the modification of the issues does not in anyway curtail the rights of any of the parties and the modified issues are only in ord