B. UMAPATHY Vs. MUTHURAYAPPA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 230/1986 on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kanakapura has filed this second appeal. His suit was dismissed and aggrieved by this judgment dated 28.01.1994, he preferred an appeal, R.A. No. 20/1994 to the District Court. The learned judge of the Fast Track Court sitting at Ramanagara, who decided the appeal dismissed it by judgment dated 22.01.2005, and aggrieved by this judgment the plaintiff is before this Court.

(2.) The plaintiff pleaded before the trial court that the suit property i.e., shop premises in a portion of property bearing K. No. 29, measuring East to West 10 ft. and North to south 15 ft. situated at Harohalli, Kanakapura Taluk belonged to him absolutely. He purchased the said property from Smt. Hayath Bee on 28.04.1983 under a registered sale deed. The defendant is a tenant in the said suit property on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and in that connection he had executed a lease agreement in favour of the husband of the vendor of the plaintiff on 01.08.1968. The defendant induced the Tahsildar to grant the suit property to him on the ground that suit schedule properly was revenue land. Therefore the plaintiff aggrieved by the order of Tahsildar filed an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara. The Assistant Commissioner set aside the grant. Then the defendant preferred an appeal, R.A. No. 38/1986 before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru. The plaintiff stated that the possession of the defendant over the suit property was unlawful in the background of the circumstances and therefore he filed a suit to recover the suit property from the defendant.

(3.) The defendant contended that Smt. Hayath Bee was not the owner of the suit property and that he was not a tenant there also. He denied to have executed lease agreement in favour of the husband of the vendor of the plaintiff. He took a specific stand that schedule property was part and parcel of Sy. No. 704 of Harohalli village and it was a government land. For this reason the plaintiff could not claim that he was the owner of the said property. The plaintiff nor his predecessor in title was the owner of the suit property. He stated that he was in continuous and peaceful possession of the suit property for more than 30 years and as such the plaintiff had no right to recover possession from him.