P KRISHNAPPA Vs. M S CHANNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL by the disappointed plaintiffs in 0. S. No. 3957 of 1984, on the file of City Civil Judge Bangalore, a suit that had been filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession in nespect of the suit schedule property, which came to be dismissed in terms of the judgment and decree d/- 20-2-2001 rendered in the said suit.

(2.) THE facts leading to filirrg of the suit and this appeal as pleaded by the plaintiff, though not necessarily consistent or cogent, are that: The original plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule properties in respect of which a declaration is sought for viz. tproperty bearing No. U-78, which is formed part of site No. 92 of Jabbar Black, Palace guttahalli, Bangalore-3, which is a site allotted to the plaintiff in the year 196 (7 by the then city Improvement Trust Board (CITB) on lease-cum-sale basis; that this site measures east to west 20 feet and north to south 25 feet; that initially a lease-cum-sale agreement was executed in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had been given possession of the site as per possession certificate dated 25-2-1969/ 6-3-1969 (Ex. P7) followed by execution of an absolute sale deed on 16-12-1983 (Ex. P1)by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), which had by then come in place of citb; that the plaintiff after taking possession had put up a shed in the suit site in addition to the hut already in existence on the western half portion of the site and that had been leased out to the original defendant M. S. Chennappa on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- and the eastern portion was rented ouit in favour another person by name Boralingaiah on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-; that the defendant having stopped paying rent from 1-10-1975 onwards, it had become necessary for the plaintiff to initiate legal action; that the plaintiff had initially filed HRC No. 2 ( (01 of 1980 (originally numbered as HRC Nb. 1435 of 1978), but the same having been dismissed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small causes, Bangalore, in terms of order dated 11-7-1984, holding that the plaintiff was not able to establish the jural relationship of landlord and tenant; thereafter the present suit had been instituted on 13-11-1984. It is also pleaded that before fi ling the suit, the plaintiff had got issued a legal notice dated 12-9-1984 (though it is not amplified in the plaint as to what were the contents of this legal notice nor the notice itself is exhibited as a document in the suit), but the defendant having chosen to evade service of notice and also having not vacated the premises, it had become necessary for the plaintiff to file the suit for declaration of the ownership of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and,for recovery of physical possession of the same.

(3.) DEFENDANT on service of notice entered appearance and filed written statement, inter alia, contending that the very description of the address of the defendant and the property are all incorrect; that the defendant has nothing to do with site no. 92, which the plaintiff claims to have got allotted from CITB that the defendant had been in possession of the premises bearing No. U-78, Jabbar Block, palace Guttahalli, Bangalore, since a long time, even before the CITB had acquired the land; that no part of the premises of the property which is in possession of the defendant ever belonged to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff had not rented out any portion of the property to the defendant; that the defendant had never paid rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- as claimed by the plaintiff, as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and for such reason HRC No. 2001 of 1980 had been rightly dismissed; that if the sons of the plaintiff had initiated another eviction petition in hrc No. 2002 of 1980, against another person to which the defendant was not a party; that the order therein was of no consequence on the answering defendant; that the defendant having constructed a structure on the site in question and having continued to live there for more than 30 years without any interruption or obstruction and has become absolute owner of the same; that he had been agitating before the BDA for recognition of his ownership and for regularization etc. that it was incorrect to say in the plaint that the plaintiff had put up some structure and let it out to the defendant; that whatever structure was available on site No. U-78 where the defendant is residing, had been put up by himself and not by any other person; that the defendant was not liable to pay any arrears of rent or any rent as claimed; that there was no cause of action for filing the suit; that the defendant had not received any legal notice as claimed in the plaint; that the defendant had perfected his title by being in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 30 years and the suit is frivolous and vexatious and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.