SYED ASADULLA Vs. KHALEELULLA KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE appellant was the defendant before the trial court in a suit for declaration and injunction. It was the case of the plaintiff that his grand father Alaf Khan had two sons, by name K. Ahmed Alikhan and Abdul Rahman Khan. The suit schedule property bearing Corporation No. 10, situated within the boundary shown in the suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiffs father Khazi Ahmed Ali Khan and his uncle Abdul Rahman Khan from one Appaiah Naidu through a registered sale deed dated 15.8.1933. The plaintiffs uncle Abdul Rahman Khan died in the year 1950. The plaintiffs father Khazi Ahmed Ali Khan and the legal heirs of Abdul Rahman Khan had effected a partition under a registered partition deed dated 28.8.1979 and in the year 1980, the plaintiffs father had died leaving behind the plaintiff Khaleelulla Khan and Hassan Ali Khan. In the year 1994, the brother of the plaintiff Hassan Ali Khan sold his share to the plaintiff through a registered sale deed on 17.1.1994 and khata was effected in the name of the plaintiff and the revenue records of the local authority in respect of the suit schedule property also stood in favour of the plaintiff and he was paying taxes in respect of the property. The defendant had been permitted to reside in a portion of the suit schedule property and it is shown as suit schedule 'B' property. According to the plaintiff, after the purchase of his brother's share, the defendant had paid rents to the plaintiff till the year 1995 and thereafter, he had stopped payment. This had constrained the plaintiff to file a petition for eviction under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 in HRC 522/1996 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. The said petition was however dismissed with an observation that the parties shall agitate their rights before a Civil Court by seeking appropriate relief of declaration about the alleged title, which was sought to be set up by the parties. It is thereafter alleged that the defendant sought to obtain electricity connection to the suit schedule property without seeking his permission and the plaintiff was constrained to file a writ petition in that regard preventing him from doing so. When the defendant tried to interfere with the suit schedule property by digging trenches, the plaintiff had filed a suit in OS 2725/1997. So also yet another suit in OS 3465/1997 and ultimately, the present suit for declaration and injunctory reliefs.

(3.) DOES he prove that the defendant was in occupation of the 'B' schedule property as a tenant under his brother Hassan Ali Khan and as because his tenant from 1993 consequent upon the purchase of his brother's share?