A permanent lease does not confer ownership rights, and the distinction between leasehold rights and ownership must be carefully evaluated in legal disputes concerning property.

JUDGMENT :

C. M. JOSHI, J.

Heard Sri.Ashok Harnahalli, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant and Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. The other respondents despite service of notice have not appeared before this Court.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in R.A.No.125/2001 passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Hubballi dated 17.03.2008, the appellant therein, who was defendant No.2 in O.S.No.26/1993 is before this Court in this second appeal.

3. The parties would be referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

4. The plaintiff (now represented by defendant No.3 to 7) filed a suit for declaration that the alienation in respect of the suit schedule property, which is site No.6 in Block No.284 of the Bhairidevarakoppa, in favour of defendant No.2 is null and void, ab-initio and not binding on the plaintiff; and consequential relief of permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, by way of amendment to the plaint, he also prayed for an alternative relief of possession in case the Court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property.

5. It was contended that the suit schedule property was owned by the father of defendant No.1 and in the year 1961, the father of the defendant No.1 executed registered permanent lease deed in favour of one Vasant Belamkar and thereafter, the said Vasant Belamkar had sold the permanent lease-hold rights in favour of the plaintiff through registered deed dated 11.12.1970. In pursuance to the said deeds, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It was contended that the defendant No.2, claiming to be the purchaser of the suit schedule property, tried to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and later he came to know that the defendant No.1 had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2, which cannot bind the plaintiff in any way since he is in possession of the property on the basis of permanent lease deed.

6. The said suit was resisted by the defendant No.2. The defendant No.1 and 2 appeared before the Trial Court and filed their written statements. The defendant No.1 and 2 denied the contentions of the plaintiff but on the other hand, they contended that the defendant No.1 had sold the title in respect of the suit schedule property to the defendant No.2 under a sale deed dated 01.10.1991 and as such, the defendant No.2 is in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is also contended that the defendant No.1 had sold plot No.4 and 5, which were adjacent to the suit schedule property to one Rasheed Ballari and Veeresh, who are in possession of the same.

7. On the basis of the said contentions, the following issues were framed:

“ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property since 12.12.1970?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the alienation of the suit property at para 2(b) by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is null, void, ab-initio, not binding on the plaintiff?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No.2 is causing obstruction to his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property at para 2(b) of the plaint?

4. Whether the defendant No.2 has proved that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property at para 2(b) as a owner?

5. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No.1 is trying to alienate the suit property at a para 2(a) causing disturbances to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff?

6. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitle