The captioned Regular First Appeal is filed by an

unsuccessful defendant wherein the plaintiff's suit for

possession is decreed directing the defendants herein

to hand over possession by accepting a sum of

Rs.75,000/-.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rank

before the Court below.

3. The subject matter of the suit is a property

bearing Old No.24, correspondingly No.10, which is a

residential house. The plaintiff has filed the present

- 3 -

suit seeking relief of declaration of title and possession

from the defendants. It is the specific case of the

plaintiff that one Lakshmamma was the absolute

owner of the suit schedule property and she, along

with her children, sold the suit schedule property to

the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated

8.5.2007. The plaintiff is asserting title on the basis

of the registered sale deed dated 8.5.2007. The

plaintiff specifically pleaded that the defendants are in

possession based on a agreement/possessory

mortgage for a sum of Rs.75,000/-. The plaintiff

filed an ejectment suit before the Small Causes Court,

Bengaluru in S.C.No.15541/2011 by issuing a Quit

Notice under the provisions of the Transfer of Property

Act, 1882. The said suit was contested by the

defendants

by

contending

that

they

are

the

mortgagee-in-possession and therefore the ejectment

suit was not maintainable. The Small Causes Court

- 4 -

having examined the material on record dismissed the

suit on the ground that there is no subsisting lease

between the plaintiff and defendants and therefore for

want of jural relationship, the Small Causes Court was

not inclined to grant any relief. Consequently, the

ejectment suit was dismissed.

4. Therefore, the present suit is filed seeking

the relief of declaration of title to declare the plaintiff

as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property

and consequentially to direct the defendants to

handover vacant possession of the residential house

by accepting Rs.75,000/-.

5. The defendants, on receipt of summons,

contested the proceedings by filing written statement.

The

first

defendant

stoutly

denied

the

entire

averments made in the plaint. The defendants

contended that on 5.7.1999, the absolute owner viz.,

- 5 -

Lakshmamma mortgaged the suit schedule property in

favour of defendants for a period of five years for a

sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The defendants claimed that

the erstwhile owner failed to seek redemption and

therefore disputed the title of the plaintiff over the suit

schedule property.

6. The trial Court, based on the rival

contentions, formulated the following issues:

"1.

Whether the plaintiff proves that he is

the owner of the suit schedule property

by virtue of sale deed dated 8.5.2007?

Whether the plaintiff proves that the

defendants No.1 & 2 are the tenants of

suit schedule property under plaintiff's

vendor Smt. Lakshmamma?

3.

Whether the defendants No.1 and 2

prove that they are the mortgagees of

the

suit

schedule

property

for

Rs.1,50,000/-

under

the

said

Lakshmamma for 5 years from 5.7.1999?

4.

Whether the plaintiff proves that the

defendants No.1 and 2 are agreed to

vacate the suit schedule property on

21.2.2013?

- 6 -

5.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the

relief sought?

6.

What order or decree?".

7. The plaintiff to substantiate his claim

examined himself as PW.1 and adduced documentary

evidence vide Ex.P1 to P30. While the defendants

examined the first defendant as DW.1 and produced

two documents which are marked as Exs.D1 and D2.

The

Court

below

having

examined

oral

and

documentary evidence on record answered issue No.1

in the affirmative while issue Nos.2 and 3 were

answered in the negative. The trial Court having

examined the voluminous documents adduced by the

plaintiff, more particularly, the title document i.e., the

registered sale deed dated 8.5.2007 marked as Ex.P1,

was of the view that the plaintiff has succeeded in

establishing his title over the suit schedule property.

Referring to the title document