GOWRAMMA Vs. JAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful petitioners have come up with this revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the impugned order dated 6-9-2004 passed by the Prl. District Judge, Mysore in rent Revision No. 99/2002 whereby the learned District Judge affirmed the Order dated 14-11-2002 passed by the II Addl. I civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Mysore in HRC No. 448/1984 dismissing the eviction petition filed by them.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Gowramma is the daughter of late Sri Bank boregowda and his wife late Smt. Lakshamma. During the lifetime of late Sri bank Boregowda, father of petitioner No. 1, he bequeathed all his properties to his wife late Smt. Lakshamma under a registered will ex. P-l dated 10-1-1958 wherein it is made clear that she should enjoy the property and the income therefrom during her lifetime and also directed that his children including petitioner No. 1 are entitled for partition of the properties and partition may be effected among his children by Lakshamma. Accordingly, Lakshamma executed a registered partition deed dated 7-10-1963 dividing the properties bequeathed to her under the will Ex. P-1. Therefore petitioner No. 1 got the petition schedule property and she became the absolute owner but late Lakshamma reserved her right to utilise the rent realised from the house property during her lifetime but subsequently she executed a registered Release deed dated 3-12-1966 in favour of the petitioners giving up her right to the rent from petition schedule house and conferred absolute right, title over the same to the petitioner No. 1. Therefore the petitioners became the absolute and exclusive owners of the petition schedule premises. The petitioners leased the premises to one Sri B. L. Ramaiah in the year 1968 on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/ -. After his demise, the respondents have continued to be in possession of the petition schedule premises as lessees under the petitioners as legal heirs of deceased B. L. Ramaiah. Therefore they have no right or interest in the petition schedule premises. It is further case of the petitioners that deceased Lakshamma has executed a registered Cancellation deed dated 15-4-1972 purporting to cancel the prior registered Release deed dated 3-12-1966. Later the petitioners came to know that a Gift deed dated 12-11-1973 was said to have been executed by late Smt. Lakshamma in favour of Boraiah, brother of petitioner No. 1 with ulterior motive. Later the petitioners came to know that boraiah appears to have executed registered sale deeds dated 8-1-1983 and 28-2-1983 in favour of the first and second respondents deliberately describing the door number of the premises as 2899/1 in a misleading manner, in view of the partition deed dated 7-10-1963, petitioner No. 1 became the absolute owner of the petition schedule premises and subsequent release dated 3-12-1966 in favour of petitioners confirming absolute title on them. Therefore the Cancellation deed dated 15-4-1972 is of no consequence. Thereby the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 will not get any right, title over the petition schedule premises. Either Smt. Lakshamma or Boraiah have any right whatsoever to deal with the property in any manner. Since the premises in occupation of petitioners is insufficient and congested as the number of members of the family have increased and they have number of relatives to visit them regularly, they need extra accommodation. It is further case of the petitioners that petitioners have got marriageable and school going children for whom also the present house is insufficient. Therefore the petitioners require the petition schedule premises for their occupation, which is suitable for the comfortable stay of the petitioners and their family. The respondents being the heirs of deceased B. L. Ramaiah have acquired the premises bearing Door No. 18/2 (Assessment no. 2021/1), Madhavachar Road, K. R. Mohalla, Mysore. Apart from that respondent no. 1 acquired site in Vijayanagar I Stage, mysore and has built a residential house thereon. Respondent No. 4 has acquired a house behind Kamakshi Hospital, T. K. Layout, Mysore. The respondents are having suitable accommodations for their occupation. In spite of legal notice dated 2-5-1984, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are in actual possession failed to comply the demand made by the petitioners and sent an untenable reply.

(3.) AFTER service of notice, the respondents appeared through Counsel and filed detailed objections contending that their father B. L. Ramaiah was a tenant of the petition schedule premises under Lakshamma. After the death of their father B. L. Ramaiah, they continued to be in occupation of the petition schedule premises as tenants under lakshamma. In fact, Lakshamma executed a gift deed in favour of Boraiah, brother of petitioner No. 1 in respect of the petition schedule premises and the respondents purchased the same from Boraiah in the year 1983 under two registered sale deeds. Therefore as soon as they purchased the property and continued to be in possession as lawful owners, the question of jural relationship of landlord and tenant does not arise. They are the owners of the petition schedule premises. Therefore the question of vacating the same does not arise. The petitioners have made a false allegation that the respondents have not paid the rent from 1-1-1983 onwards and the Courtbelow cannot go into the question of title in a summary trial and the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. In view of the dispute between the parties with regard to the' title of the petition schedule premises, civil court alone has jurisdiction to decide the matter. Therefore they pray for dismissal of the petition.