JAGADISH R. Vs. R. UMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal is preferred by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 31/1/2023 in OS No. 5964 of 2015 on the file of XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH6) ('the trial Court' for short) whereby the trial Court partly decreed the suit for declaration and possession in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) The suit property is mentioned as property bearing site No. 2, first floor. The plaintiffs averred that the suit schedule property was the self acquired property of plaintiff No. 1. It was purchased under a registered sale deed dtd. 30/11/1992 from the original owner out of her own earnings while she was employed abroad in Kuwait. After purchase, she has constructed a three storied RCC building out of her own earnings. The first defendant, being her son, was permitted to occupy the first floor, while the ground floor was let out to a tenant and plaintiff No. 1 resided in the second floor. It is further pleaded that the first defendant and his wife (defendant No. 2) gradually became hostile, refused to vacate and began asserting ownership. Plaintiff No. 1 had executed registered gift deeds in favour of her daughters/plaintiffs No. 2 to 4, thereby transferring her title to them. Despite repeated requests the defendants failed to deliver possession. The suit was therefore filed seeking declaration that plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 are the absolute owners and recovery of vacant possession of the first floor and the mesne profits/ damages of Rs.5,000.00 per month for unauthorised occupation.

(3.) The defendants denied the plaint allegations and contended that the entire sale consideration and construction costs were provided by the first defendant out of his own earnings. It was asserted that from 1972 to 1985 he was employed in Bengaluru and thereafter at Kuwait, and that the suit property though standing in the name of his mother, was benami, purchased with his funds. It was contended that the plaintiff No.1, who worked only for 3 years as an Ayah could not have saved enough to purchase property worth Rs.50,000.00 in 1992 and build a three storied house. The defendants further contended that the suit schedule property is the only shelter for their livelihood and the suit is filed with an ulterior motive to deprive the right of the defendants over the suit property.