RAJARAM MOULSAB KALAL Vs. BASAWWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the legal representatives of the plaintiff. The respondents are the legal representatives of the defendant. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration of her title to the suit property and for possession. The suit property consists of a shop premises bearing CTS.No,.1533/ 36-B in Gadag Town. The suit was filed in 1959. Magarsab, the original owner of the suit property sold the same to the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dt.17-7-1939. The defendant was the tenant in occupation of the suit premises since prior to the date of sale in favour of the plaintiff. According to, the plaint allegations, soon after she became the owner, intimation was conveyed to the defendant who agreed to continue to stay there as a tenant for a period of one year on a monthly rent of Rs.25. It is alleged that the defendant enjoyed the confidence of the plaintiff. The defendant was acting as agent of the plaintiff in a number of transactions. The defendant continued to remain as tenant till differences arose between them in respect of some other landed property belonging to the plaintiff in the year 1958 and the plaintiff got issued a notice terminating the tenancy of the Deft and claiming arrears of rent. The Deft replied denying her title and contending that he is the true owner of the premises and that the plaintiff is merely a 'Benamidar'. He also claimed that he had become the owner of the property by adverse possession. According to the case of the defendant, he and the plaintiff wore friends and since defendant's brother Virupakshappa was leading the life of a vagabond, the suit property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff by the defendant. He also pleaded that he was in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant under the previous owners and continued to stay there subsequent to the date of purchase. He further pleaded that there was mutual confidence between himself and the plaintiff and therefore did not get the 'Katha' of the property changed into his name and that since differences arose between him and the plaintiff in 1958, the plaintiff is trying to take advantage of the sale deed standing in her name. He also pleaded that the sale deed of the suit property remains with him.

(2.) Both the lower Courts held that the plea of 'Benami' set up by the defendant is not true. But they held that the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, both the lower Courts dismissed the suit.

(3.) The reason given by the defendant for getting the sale deed in the name of the plaintiff is that the defendant's brother Virupakshappa was leading the life of a vagabond and therefore he wanted to save the property from creditors. But it is in evidence that the said Virupakshappa is doing jewellery business along with the defendant. It is also in evidence that the defendant has purchased a number of properties in his own name. It is also in evidence that the defendant was enjoying the confidence of the plaintiff and has acted on her behalf in a number of transactions. In view of all these circumstances, both the lower Courts held that the plea of 'Benami' set up by the defendant is not true. This is a finding on a question of fact and there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the lower Courts in this regard.