PREMA Vs. DIOCESE OF MANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have preferred this second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 13/2/2006 passed in OS No.202 of 2003 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mangaluru DK (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity), wherein, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and defendant Nos.1 to 4 were directed to deliver the vacant possession of the land covered under the premises bearing New Door No.17/5/228 (Old No.17-727) situated in TS No.728 of Jappinamogaru Village (for short 'the schedule premises'), by removing the superstructure and to pay arrears of rent, mesne profits with interest, which was confirmed vide judgment dtd. 20/4/2012 passed in RA No.143 of 2006 on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, DK (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for brevity), and also directing defendant Nos.1 to 3 to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises by allowing the cross appeal and dismissing the appeal preferred by the defendants.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff filed the suit against defendant Nos.1 to 5 seeking direction to the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises or in the alternate to deliver the vacant land covered under the premises bearing New Door No.17/5/228 (Old No.17-727) situated in TS No.728 of Jappinamogaru Village, by removing the superstructure and also for arrears of rent of mesne profits. It is contended by the plaintiff that it is the absolute owner of the schedule premises. Originally, defendant No.5 had obtained the suit property along with other properties from the plaintiff on lease. Further, defendant No.5 in turn leased the suit property in favour of one Ramachandra, the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 4, on monthly rental basis. The dispute had arisen between defendant No.5 and the said Ramachandra and a suit was initiated. During the pendancy of the suit, Ramachandra died and defendants succeeded to his interest. The Court held that defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the tenants liable to pay rent of Rs.75.00. Therefore, the said judgment and decree is binding on defendant Nos.1 to 4.