D VICTOR Vs. L SUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal, from the judgment and decree dated 5-1-1987 passed by the i additional city civil judge, Bangalore in original suit No. 1501 of 1982, Mr. D. Victor v Mr. L. Sundaram, claiming for declaration of title and possession and mesne profits whereby the trial court has dismissed the plaintiffs claim in toto.

(2.) THE plaintiffs case as per plaint allegations is that he is the absolute owner of house property No. 40 situated in sy. No. 106 of kodihalli within the jurisdiction of h. a. l. sanitary board, Bangalore south taluk. The plaintiff claims that he purchased the site in dispute namely No. 40 in sy. No. 106, kodihalli, now bearing No. 57, postal No. 57, murugeshpalyam, bangaldre-70 by a registered sale deed dated 13-11-1972. the plaintiffs case is that, plaintiff out of his self earned money constructed the house on the said site No. 40. After the construction of the house by the plaintiff, the plaintiff along with his father late. Sri david and robinson his brother started residing in the house. The defendant, who was his uncle or to say younger brother of his father, had also been permitted to stay in the house along with them and this permission to reside was given to him to live in the house with the plaintiff and his father simply on account of the plaintiffs love and affection for the defendant who was none else than the plaintiffs junior father/paternal uncle i. e. , as the defendant was 'chikkappa' of the plaintiff. the plaintiffs case is that, he had left the original sale deed or the title deed relating to house with his father and his father died on 19-6-1977. that after his father's death, in spite of best efforts, the appellant could not trace the original sale deed, thereafter he obtained certified copy of the sale deed. Plaintiffs case is that, notice of assessment was issued to the plaintiff with reference to his property. After the death of his father, defendant continued to be in permissive occupation of the premises along with the plaintiffs brother, as the plaintiff was undergoing great hardship in the rented premises therefore, he demanded the defendant to vacate the premises so that he could make use of suit-house and thereafter, plaintiff revoked the permission which had been granted to the defendant to occupy the suit property, by notice dated 24-6-1981. Plaintiffs further case is that the defendant gave a reply to notice and raised untenable pleas and contended that the defendant-respondent was residing and occupying the premises in his own right. The plaintiff as such, alleged that the cause of action accrued on 24-5-1981 for filing the suit for possession and declaration of title. The plaintiff has filed the suit for.

(3.) THE property in dispute has been described in schedule by the plaintiff as under.