ON

21-10-2022

COMING

ON

FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT

OF

JUDGMENT,

THIS

DAY,

P.S. DINESH KUMAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

JUDGMENT

This appeal by the second defendant is directed

against the judgment and decree dated September

27, 2014 in O.S No. 7363/2009 passed by the

Presiding Officer, FTC-VIII C/C 37^TH Additional City

Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the

suit for declaration and possession.

2.

For the sake of convenience, parties shall

be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

3.

Brief

facts

of

the

case

are,

one Late A.P. Shankar (first defendant's husband and

second defendant's father) was the owner of the suit

Schedule

Property.

He

sold

it

in

favour

of

3

one Sayeeda Fathima under a Sale deed dated

12.04.1996. Immediately after execution of the

Sale Deed, on the very same day, she leased the

property in favour of A.P. Shankar. Subsequently,

Sayeeda Fathima sold the suit schedule property in

favour of plaintiff vide Sale Deed dated November

24, 1997. After purchasing the property, plaintiff

filed a suit¹ for possession and mesne profits against

the defendants herein. In the said suit, defendants

were placed ex-parte. However, the suit was

dismissed holding that the suit was not maintainable

and the plaintiff could seek remedy under the

provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act. Thereafter,

plaintiff filed Eviction Petition² under the Karnataka

Rent Act, 1999 ('Rent Act' for short) and the same

was allowed granting three months’ time to the

defendants herein, to vacate and handover the

vacant possession. Defendants challenged the said

1 OS. No. 8108/1998.

2 HRC No. 178/2006.

4

order before this Court in H.R.R.P. No.8/2009. This

Court allowed the said petition and dismissed eviction

petition reserving liberty to the plaintiff to file

appropriate proceedings under Section 27(r) of the

Rent Act. Thereafter, plaintiff has filed the instant

suit and the same has been decreed by the

impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this appeal

by the second defendant.

4.

Plaintiff’s

case

is,

the

suit

schedule

property

is

the

self-acquired

property

of

Late A.P. Shankar. He sold it to Sayeeda Fathima and

she sold it to the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff has

acquired legal right and title over the property.

After selling the property to Sayeeda Fathima,

A.P.Shankar had remained in possession of the

property, as a tenant. After his death, defendants

continued in possession as tenants. The defendants

have no manner of right, title and interest over the

suit schedule property. Defendants are unauthorized

5

occupants without any status. Defendants have also

denied

ownership

of the plaintiff.

With

these

averments, plaintiff brought the instant suit seeking

relief of declaration, recovery of possession and

mesne profits.

5.

Defendants resisted the suit by filing

written statement contending inter alia that the

property bearing No.36 measuring 40 ft. X 60 ft. was

allotted to one A.D. Parthasarathy (A.P. Shankar's

father). He died intestate leaving behind his wife

Andalamma,

son

A.P.

Shankar

and

his

wife

(Sabitha Devi). After death of Parthasarathy,

Andalamma’s name was entered in the Khatha

records. Thereafter, khatha entry was changed in

the name of A.P. Shankar. Thus, the said property

was a joint family property consisting of A.P. Shankar

and his son Suresh Kumar (second defendant). In

order to provide a suitable accommodation to his

daughter

Mahishavardhini

[defendant

No.1(a)],

6

A.P. Shankar sold a portion of the property

measuring 30 ft. x 40 ft. to one Ghouse Mohideen.

In the remaining area of 30 ft. x 40 ft., a house and

two shops were built and A.P. Shankar lived in that

house with his family.

6.

After selling a portion of the property in

1992, a dispute arose in the family and A.P. Shankar

deserted his family members and starting living

separately

in

Ganesh

Cottage,

situated

in

R.T.

Nagar, Bengaluru. First

defendant filed

P.Mis. No.18/1995 seeking maintenance.