RAMU Vs. PAPAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants second appeal arising out of judgment and decree dated 12-2-1985, delivered by First Additional Civil Judge, Mysore (Sri Shankarnarayana Bhat) in Regular Appeal No. 71/80 (Singamma v. Ramu and another), arising out of judgment and decree dated 31-3-1980, passed by First Additional Munsiff, Mysore, dismissing the plaintiff's claim in Original Suit No.937/75, allowing the plaintiff's appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as well as decreeing the plaintiff's claim in the suit for declaration, but not for possession.

(2.) The plaintiff's case in the nut shell has been that the plaintiff i.e., the present respondent had purchased the suit schedule house from the first defendant as well as from his father Chinnakotaiah for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,000/- by registered sale deed dated August 5, 1963. The plaintiff's case is that she was put in possession of the said house and that katha, during mutation were made in her name and she had been paying kandayam (tax) since the date of purchase. According to the plaintiff-respondents case, plaintiff- respondent let out the suit premises on lease to defendant No. 1 on a rental of Rs.15/- per month. According to the plaintiff's case, the defendant-appellants had fallen in arrears of rent from 1-3-1971 to 1-3-1974. The plaintiff filed the House Rent Case in No. 135/74, in the Court of Munsiff, Mysore, but the learned Munsiff rejected the plaintiff's H.R.C., case, taking the view that there is a bona fide dispute of title between the plaintiff-respondents and the present defendants-appellants before me and that the defendants had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, and that the plaintiff was claiming title, which title was also being denied by the defendants. So in such a case, according to the Munsiff, the Munsiff had no jurisdiction to decide the question of title. The Munsiff observed that the plaintiff should file suit for decree for declaration and dismissed the H.R.C. petition. In those circumstances the plaintiff alleged that the cause of action accrued to him for filing the suit for declaration as well as for relief for possession. The plaintiff claimed herself to be the absolute owner of the suit property and entitled to the possession thereof from the defendants.

(3.) The defendants contested the plaint allegations and according to the defendants-appellants, the sale deed dated 5-8-1963 was executed in favour of the plaintiff under the pretext that it was a mortgage deed and it was executed as security for the amount of loan advanced. Defendants-appellants denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was also averred in the written statement that no causes of action did accrue in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. The plea of limitation was raised to the effect that the suit had been time barred and that the Court fee paid was insufficient. The defendants denied their liability to pay anything to the plaintiff- respondent as rental and damages and prayed that the suit be dismissed in toto.