SURESH CHATRA Vs. SRI K. BALAKRISHANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S. 71/1982 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kundapura. The pleadings briefly stated, are as below :

(2.) In respect of property bearing 3/108 (1) and 3/108 (2) of Koteshwara Village, the plaintiff instituted a suit seeking delivery of possession from the defendants and for mesne profits at the rate of 20/- per month. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendants's father was in possession of house bearing door No. 3/108 (2) of Koteshwara Village as a tenant. The defendants and their father also wanted an adjacent house bearing door No. 3/108 (1) for their residence and that they agreed to pay a monthly rent off 20/-. The defendants's father was put in possession of both the houses on 9.2.1961 and 9.7.1970. The late father of the defendants executed a Badige Kararu (rent note) on 21.7.1970 for 11 months. Since the son of the plaintiff wanted to start a business in the entire building and that the bathroom and the roof of the said building required repairs, the plaintiff terminated the monthly tenancy of the defendants by issuing a registered notice dated 21.12.1981 and called upon the defendants to pay the arrears of rent and surrender vacant possession. The defendants did not vacate and therefore the plaintiff filed a suit seeking possession.

(3.) The second defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments that his father was enjoying property bearing No. 3/108 (2) as a monthly tenant and that his father and the first defendant took the house bearing door No. 3/108 (1) on a monthly lease for Rs. 20/-. He denied that the plaintiff put them in possession on 9.2.1961 and execution of a badige kararu on 21.7.1970 for 11 months. He contended that the first defendant took possession of 20 percents of land in Sy. No. 295/5 of Koteshwara Village on 9.2.1961 and since then he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment as of right and without any interruption whatsoever. He further stated that he established a temple in the said plot and has been continuously holding religious ceremonies and rites by spending huge money. The plaintiff never objected to the improvements made by the first defendant and to enjoy the said property as absolute owner. Therefore, the first defendant acquired right to the said plot by adverse possession and that the plaintiff has no manner right, title or interest. The second defendant further contended that the plaintiff has no right to claim possession from the first defendant without paying the value of the improvements effected by him over the said plot. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.