The plaintiff must substantiate ownership independently to succeed in a suit for declaration of title, which cannot rely solely on the defendant's weaknesses.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2014 passed in RA No. 14 of 2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gubbi (‘First Appellate Court’ for short).

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court, OS No.289/1997 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Gubbi.. The appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

3.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, possession and recovery of arrears of rent. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of the brother of the plaintiff by name Krishnappa by Mandal Panchayath, Chelur. The plaintiff and his brother Krishnappa had divided their ancestral properties and joint family properties including the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff in the partition effected between him and his sibling. The plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. On 01.06.1993, the defendant approached the plaintiff for letting out the suit schedule property on monthly rent and the plaintiff agreed to let out the schedule property to the defendant on a monthly rent at the rate of ₹50/- and the same was occupied by the defendant on 01.06.1993. The defendant had failed to pay the rent from 01.06.1993 to 31.07.1997. The plaintiff requested the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant denied to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff issued a legal notice terminating the tenancy of the suit schedule property. The defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor handed over the possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title, possession and recovery of arrears of rent. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

3.2. The defendant filed a written statement denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is contented that, the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 35 years and it is contented that, she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is also denied that there exists any relationship as a tenant and landlord between the plaintiff and the defendant. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

4. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and they were re-casted as follows:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is due to pay arrears of rent to the plaintiff as claimed in the suit?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as claimed in the suit?

4. What Order or Decree?

5. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. The defendant examined herself as DW1, examined one witness as DW2 and marked 26 documents as Exs.D1 to D26.

6. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs vide judgment and decree dated 20.01.2010.

7. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in OS No. 289 of 1997, filed an appeal