RAMCHANDRA ANNAPPA Vs. SUBRAYA TIMMAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of Bavdekar J. who dismissed the second appeal against the decision of the learned Dist. J. , Kanara, who in his turn diamissed the appeal from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge at Sirsi dismiaaing the pltf. 's suit.

(2.) THE pltf. claimed that deft. 1 was the chalgeni tenant of his, that he had served upon deft. 1 a notice terminating the tenancy on 20-12-1942, and that he was entitled to possession of the suit property from deft. 1. The pltf. also claimed arrears of the rent and costs.

(3.) THE defences taken up by deft. 1 were that there was an oral agreement between his deceased brother and the pltf. to lease the suit properties as well as other properties at mulgeni, that in pursuance of the said agreement his brother had migrated with his family to cultivate the suit properties and that the mulgeni agreement was written on 22 2-1915, in respect of both the bagayat and the paddy lands but that subsequently Narasinha had changed his mind and insisted on two separate documents of lease pertaining to the bagayat and the paddy lands respectively, that he was a mulgeni tenant in respect of the suit lands, and in the alternative held the suit lands as a mulgeni tenant by virtue of the doctrine of part-performance as laid down in Section 63-A, T. P. Act.