T R SRIKANTAIAH SETTY Vs. BALAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant 1 has filed this appeal against the judgment and ecree of the Trial Court whereby it decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent 1 declaring him to be the absolute owner of the suit property and directed the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and has also awarded costs. The appellant is defendant 1 while the respondent 1 is the plaintiff and the respondent 2 is the second defendant.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and for delivery of the suit property for him and also for mesne profits from 4-7-1975 to the date of delivery of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 21-7-1975 from its previous owner Padmavathamma. The said padmavathamma also attorned over the tenants occupying the suit premises to the plaintiff. Two of the tenants accepted the attornment and have been paying rents to the plaintiff. The other two tenants refused to pay rents and the plaintiff filed SC Nos. 1958 and 1959 of 1975 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore for the recovery of the rent and in that suit the second defendant claimed that he is the tenant of the first defendant and the first defendant claimed the property in his own right and hence the Small Causes Court directed the parties to settle their dispute in the original suit. Hence, this suit. The cause of action for the suit according to the plaintiff arose on 21-7-1975, the date of sale of the suit property in his favour from the previous owner Padmavathamma and on the subsequent dates when he proclaimed his title to the suit property. On these and other averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff sought for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants. The first defendant by his written statement while admitting the proceedings on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, has contended that the entire premises bearing no. 566, Burugal Mutt Road, V. V. Puram, Bangalore City was owned and possessed by Sri V. Ramaiah Setty, who was the father of his wife (father-in-law of the first defendant ). His marriage took place in the year 1957 at Bangalore with the only daughter of the deceased V. Ramaiah setty. At the time of their marriage, his parents-in-law had promised that a residential building would be given as a gift to his wife Smt. Pramila. In pursuance of the promise made by the parents-in-law at the time of their marriage to their only daughter Pramila, the property in question was given as a gift by way of Arasina Kunkuma to the said Smt. Pramila for the use and benefit of herself and her husband viz. , the first defendant. The said gift was accepted and acted upon by the parties. The defendant 1 and his wife Smt. Pramila have been in occupation of the premises from the year, 1959. It is further contended that the premises is possessed and enjoyed by the first defendant and his wife continuously and uninterruptedly for over 18 years adversely to the interest of all persons including Sri V. Ramaiah Setty. According to the first defendant, it is his wife who is the absolute owner of the premises in question and she has perfected her title to the property by adverse possession. It is also contended that the possession of the wife of the first defendant and himself is continuous, open, hostile and adverse to the interest of all including that of the plaintiff. The first defendant denied that the suit property had been gifted by the deceased V. Ramaiah Setty in favour of one Padmavathamma who in her turn had sold the property to the plaintiff. In the additional written statement filed by the first defendant, he had further contended that the claim of the plaintiff is false, frivolous, vexatious and untenable. It is stated that the said Smt. Padmavathamma had no right, title or interest in the property in question and that she is in no way related to the deceased Ramaiah Setty. It is further reiterated that the property in question belongs to his father-in-law and that his wife who had been gifted of the said property by her father has perfected her title to the suit property by adverse possession. It is also contended that the said Smt. Padmavathamma did not acquire any right over the suit property under the alleged gift and that she had no alienable or transferable interest in the suit property. On these and other averments made in the written statement and in the additional written statement, the first defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff.

(3.) THE defendant 2 has filed his written statement wherein he has contended that to the best of his knowledge, the first defendant and his wife are the absolute owners of the premises in question and that he came to occupy a portion of the suit property as a tenant of the first defendant about nine years ago and he has been paying rents to the first defendant. He has further contended that there is no cause of action for the suit as against him and hence the suit of the plaintiff is highly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.