Title and ownership supersede possession claims in property disputes; unregistered gift deeds are insufficient to establish ownership. The court must rely on valid title documents.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

This appeal is filed by the appellants/ defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2018 passed by the learned III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH.No.25)(hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court' for brevity) in O.S.No.8782/2010.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants are 'defendants' and respondent is the 'plaintiff'.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed suit in O.S.No.8782/2010 for declaration, possession, damages and for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule properties. The case of the plaintiff is that Item No.1 of schedule property belonged to one Siddaramanna, he sold it to one Kempaiah @ Appaiah under registered sale deed dated 18.07.1955. On the same day, one Muniswamy Reddy, who was the absolute owner of Item No.2 sold it to said Kempaiah @ Appaiah, hence, said Kempaiah became the absolute owner of both suit items of the schedule property. Later, Kempaiah sold the suit schedule properties to one Gangappa, S/o. Late Gangaiah through registered sale deed dated 17.03.1971 and put him in possession. Said Gangappa enjoyed the schedule property as absolute owner till his death and on his death, his wife Smt. Sharadamma and son Venkataramana sold both suit items to the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 12.04.2005. When the schedule properties were held by Gangappa, the defendants were tenants under him and they were paying rents to him, however, no rent receipts were issued to them. Defendant No.1 is none other the mother of defendant Nos.2 to 5. Once the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule properties, he got changed khata in his name from BBMP, paid development charges and the property taxes. Soon after purchase of the property, he issued intimation of his acquisition to the defendants on 02.05.2006 and called upon the defendants to pay rents to him thereafter, but the defendants did not heed to his request and paid the rents. Thus the plaintiff got issued termination notice to the defendants on 12.10.2006. Inspite of the service of notice, the defendants did not come forward to pay the rents, instead, defendant No.2 sent an untenable reply contending that the suit schedule properties were gifted to defendant No.1 by way of unregistered Gift Deed executed by one Kempaiah @ Appaiah and later through registered partition deed dated 19.05.2006, they have partitioned the schedule properties amongst themselves. On receipt of such reply, the plaintiff filed eviction petition in HRC No.165/2007 under Section 27(2) (f) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act , 1999, wherein defendants appeared and disputed the jural relationship of tenant and landlord between themselves and said Gangappa. Hence, the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes dismissed the petition as not maintainable. In view of the said finding, the plaintiff had filed original suit in O.S.No.8782/2010 before the III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City(CCH.25) and sought for declaration, possession and permanent injunction against the defendants.

The defendants contested the suit. They filed joint written statement. They admitted that Kempaiah purchased the suit items from Siddaramanna and Muniswamy Reddy under two separate sale deeds. However, they denied that Kempaiah @ Appaiah later sold suit schedule properties to Gangappa. Instead, they contended that, Kempaiah being the father-in-law of defendant No.1 gifted t