P. KRISHNAPPA S/O PUTTAIAH (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. SMT. HUCHAMMA W/O LATE P. KRISHNAPPA AND OTHERS) Vs. M.S. CHANNAPPA S/O CHANNAIAH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL by the disappointed plaintiffs in OS 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 respect of the suit schedule property, which came to be dismissed in terms of the judgment and decree 20 -2 -2001 rendered in the said suit.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing 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., property bearing No. U -78, which is formed part of site No. 92 of Jabbar Block, Palace Guttahalli, Banglore -3, which is a site allotted to the plaintiff in the year 1967 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 [ExP7] followed by execution of an absolute sale deed on 16 -12 -1983 [ExP1] 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. Chennppa on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/ - and the eastern portion was rented out 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. 2001 of 1980 [originally numbered as HRC No. 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 filing 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.) IN the light of such rival pleadings, the learned trial judge has framed the following issues: