N LAKSHMANA REDDY Vs. K MUNI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are heard and disposed of together. The appellants were the defendants in the respective suits filed by the same plaintiff. The two suits were disposed of by a common judgment by the trial court. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court, for the sake of convenience, in this judgment.

(2.) IT was the plaintiff's case that he was the absolute owner of property bearing site no.236/39, 18th Cross, Lakkasandra Extension, Bangalore, measuring East to West 58 feet plus 60 feet/2 and North to South 40 feet and the same was said to have been purchased under a sale deed dated 6.10.1965, from one Chikka Abbaiah. The same was more fully described in Schedule 'A', to the plaint. The revenue records stood transferred in favour of the plaintiff and he was said to be in possession of the same. The plaintiff is said to have put up a temporary structure with sheet roofing in the rear, eastern end of suit Schedule 'A' property, measuring about 15 x 30 feet, in the year 1967. The plaintiff was said to have been residing therein. He is later said to have moved along with his family to Chandapur, in the year 1971. It is stated that at that point of time, the plaintiff was said to have been requested by his son -in -law, one Ramaswamy Reddy, to lease out the area measuring 15 X 30 feet in favour of his brother, Lakshmana Reddy. He was accordingly said to have been inducted as a tenant in respect of that portion of the property, on a monthly rent which was enhanced to Rs.300/ -, from the initial rent of Rs.100/ -. It transpires that the said Laksmana Reddy though had paid the rents for some period, had thereafter defaulted and had refused to pay the rents and ultimately disputed the ownership of the plaintiff, when he was asked vacate the property. It was in that background that the suit in O.S.No.6104/1998 came to be filed against him seeking recovery of possession and mesne profits. The portion of property under the occupation of Lakshmana Reddy was described as Schedule 'B' property in the said suit.

(3.) ON the above pleadings the trial court had framed the following issues in OS 6104 / 1988 :