C MANIKYAM Vs. R THIMMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9 1-1975 passed by the Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in RA No. 158/73 on his file, dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff on confirming the judgment and decree dated 10-7-1973, passed by the I Addl.I Munsiff, Bangalore in OS No. 887/1969 on his file, dismissing the suit instituted by the plaintiff for declaration of bis title and for possession of the schedule property.

(2.) Sy.No. 8 of Ranganathapur according to the plaintiff belonged to K.Shanmugam and the members of his family. Raghavappa and Chengalarayappa purchased the said survey number under a sale deed dt. 1 8 1955. They formed several sites and site Nos. 17 and 18 were purchased by one Manikya Mudaiiar son of Narayanaswamy Mudaliar from them, under a registered sale deed dt. 20 7 1957. Manikya Mudaiiar paid conversion charges in respect of site No. 17 on 23 7-1957. Thereafter the plaintiff purchased and constructed a shed on it and orally leased it to defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 10. The defendant was in arrears of rent from 1-9-1965. The plaintiff filed an eviction petition against him on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide use and occupation. In the eviction petition, the defendant denied plaintiff's title and contended that he was a lessee under the previous owner and put the plaintiff to establish his title before the Civil Court and the plaintiff was ultimately directed by the Munsiff under the Rent Control Act to establish his title in a regular Civil Court and hence the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his title and for possession.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit by taking up several contentions. He denied the title of the plaintiff. He further asserted that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the title of the plaintiff or defendant as that was the special jurisdiction of the Special Deputy Commissioner under the Inams Abolition Act; the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted. He contended that there was no relationship as landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiff.