The defendant in OS.No.451/2015 on the file of the

II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Hassan has filed this writ

petition challenging an order dated 03.08.2022, by which an

application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 1 R/w Section 26 of

Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.

2.

The suit in OS.No.451/2015 was filed for ejectment

of the defendant from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff

claimed that he was the owner of the suit property having

derived it at a partition dated 24.03.1992. He claimed that he

had rented out the ground floor of the suit premises to the

defendant under an rent agreement dated 15.12.1998 and first

floor of the suit premises in terms of rent agreement dated

05.11.2003. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had failed

to pay the rent which compelled him to terminate the tenancy.

The defendant contested the suit. He admitted that he was a

tenant under the plaintiff. However, he denied that he was

inducted in the ground floor of the suit premises under the rent

agreement dated 15.12.1998 and the first floor under the rent

agreement dated 05.11.2003. He gave a different boundary of

the property which was in his possession and contended that,

3

the said boundaries differed from the boundaries mentioned in

the suit schedule. After the evidence of plaintiff was recorded,

the defendant filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 and 15

R/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to call upon the

plaintiff to place on record the partition deed dated 24.03.1992

and the rent agreements dated 15.12.1998 and 05.11.2003. The

trial Court in terms of the order dated 03.08.2022 rejected the

application, on the ground that the burden to prove the tenancy

was upon the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant cannot

summon the document the said document. Being aggrieved by

the said order, this writ petition is filed.

3.

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the

trial Court had framed an issue "whether the defendant proved

that the description of the suit property mentioned is not

correct?" He contends that the documents relied upon the

plaintiffs in the plaint are essential to prove that the property

prescribed in the schedule, does not correspond with the

property which is in possession of the defendant.

4

4.

In the written statement filed by the defendant, he

claimed that he had not executed the rent agreement dated

15.12.1998 and 05.11.2003. However, he has admitted that he

is a tenant under the plaintiff. Therefore, it is incumbent upon

the defendant to prove the boundaries of the property where he

was put in possession by the plaintiff. In so far as the partition

deed is concerned, since the plaintiff had relied upon the said

document, it was for him to produce the same in accordance

with law. The defendant has not denied the title of the plaintiff to

the suit schedule property and therefore, the defendant cannot

now turn around and claim that the plaintiff is not the owner of

the suit property. Hence, the request of the defendant to

summon the partition deed dated 24.03.1992, is highly

misplaced. There is no error committed by the trial Court in

passing the impugned order.

Hence, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PK