DEVENDRA KEERTHI BHATTARKA P SWAMIGALU Vs. JEJANNA H

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15-4-1972 parsed by the Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No.159 of 1969 dismissing his appeal filed againrt the judgment and decree dated 7-11-1969 passed by the Munsiff, Sagar in OS. No. 232 of 1962 dismissing the suit which was brought by him agjainrt the defendant for a declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property with past and future mesne profits and costs.

(2.) The few facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be stated under : The plaintiff's case is that the plaint schedule property consisting of a house and back-yard is the trust property of the Humcha Sri Jain Mutt of which the plaintiff is the present Swamiji. The defendant father was an employee of the said Mutt. He was allowed to ure a portion of the suit house by the plaintiff's guru as he was helping the Bhaktas, pilgrims and agents to stay in the suit house during their visit to the Mutt. Though the suit property was exempt from payment of kandayam, kandayam was levied on it and the defendant's father was directed to pay kandayam on the suit property. The plaintiff's guru gave possesrion of the suit property to the defendant's father on condition that he should do all the work for the Mult as he was doing earlier and also pay the kandayam on the suit property. The plaintiff, after he became the Swamiji of the Mutt, allowed the defendant's father to live in the ruit house on the same conditions on which he was allowed to stay in the suit house by the plaintiff's guru. The defendant was also having a small shop in the suit house. After the death of the defendant's father, the defendant has continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property as, a licensee on the same conditions under which his father was put in possession of it. Of late, the defendant started harassing the pilgrims who used to stay in the suit house during their visit to the Mutt and also started flouting the words of the authorities of the Mutt. Hence, the plaintiff got issued, a notice on 1-10-1961 calling upon the defendant to hand over possession of the suit property to the Mutt. The defendant sent a reply dated 18-10-1961 in which he denied the plaintiff's title to the suit property. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant resided the suit on the following grounds : He was not aware that his father was working as an employee of the Mutt. He denied that the ruit property belonged to the Mutt. The suit house was got built by has grand-father in the year 1916. Since then the defendant and his ancestors have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit house in their own right. He denied that his father war in possession of the suit property ar a licensee. The plaintiff, after he was elevated to the Gadi of the Mutt got issued, a notice to the defendant's father on 7-12-1949 to which a reply was sent by his father on 16-12-1949 in which his father had denied the plaintiff's title to the suit property. The defendant and his ancestors were in possession of the suit property for over 12 years even during the time of the plaintiff's Guru adverse to the interests, Of the Mutt in their own right and as such the defendant had perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession. Even after the plaintiff was installed to 'Gadi', the defendant and his ancestors have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for over 12 yearsi denying the title of the plaintiff and as such the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession against the plaintiff. The suit property was not in the possession of either the plaintiff or his'predecessors in their own right for 12 years before the suit. On the other hand, the defendant and his predecessors have been in possession of it in their own right. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation. The defendant's grand-father Javali Veerappa built the suit house out of his own income. He has denied that the suit property was built either by the plaintiff or his predecessors. After the death of his father, the defendant has spent Rs.3,000 to effect repairs to the suit house. On these grounds the defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.