Lalitha vs Devaki Shedthi and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The appellant is before this Court assailing the concurrent judgments rendered by the Courts below.

The respondents herein were before the trial Court in O.S. No. 251/1995 seeking possession of the suit schedule premises. The trial Court by the judgment dated 03.07.2001 has decreed the suit. The defendant was before the Lower Appellate Court in R.A. No. 309/2001. The Lower Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence has by its judgment dated 25.07.2012 concurred with the judgment of the trial Court. Against such concurrent findings and judgments rendered by the Courts below, the appellant is before this Court.

The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the judgments would contend that the Courts below have wrongly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had proved that they are the owners in respect of the property in question. It is his contention that the document which was relied on as at Ex-P3 is only a notarized copy of the sale deed and as such, the same could not have been taken into consideration by the Courts below to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. It is his case, in such circumstance, when the defendant was claiming that applications had been filed before the Land Tribunal, the right as claimed by the plaintiffs seeking to evict the defendant by contending that he is a tenant could not have been accepted by the Courts below. Hence, it is his case; both the Courts have concurrently erred in arriving at such conclusion.

In the light of the contentions, I have perused the judgments passed by the Courts below. The plaintiffs had filed the suit as the legal representatives of Vasu Shetty. It was contended that the defendant was in occupation of the non-agricultural property wherein, the building is situate. Notice of termination had been issued and thereafter, suit had been filed seeking possession of the property.

The defendant had filed the written statement. It was contended that an application in Form No. 2A had been filed before the Land Tribunal. Subsequent to the death of the defendant, the legal representative, who had come on record has filed an additional statement claiming that Form No. 7A under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act had been filed.

In the light of the rival contentions, the trial Court had framed as many as four issues for its consideration. The plaintiff No. 5 had examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon the documents at Exs-P1 to P4. The defendant examined a witness Shivappa as D.W.-1 and document at Ex-D1 was relied upon.

In the nature of the contentions that had been raised and the issues that were formulated, it is no doubt true that the plaintiffs had relied on Ex-P3 which is a notarized copy of the sale deed. In the instant case, though the ownership of the property was one of the aspects which was required to be established, the defendant on the other hand contended that they were seeking right in respect of the same property under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and to that extent, they had not denied the ownership of Vasu Shetty. The essential aspect which requires consideration is as to whether the plaintiffs No. 2 to 6 were the legal representatives of Vasu Shetty when there was no serious dispute to the fact that Vasu Shetty was the owner of the property.

In that light, when it is contended that they were the legal representatives and it was also shown that the defendant was in occupation of a building which had belonged to them, the notice at Ex-P1 terminating the tenancy was relevant and sufficient, whereas the document at Ex-P3 is not of any consequence. It is seen that the notice dated 03.03.1987 which had been issued had not been replied by the defendant. Further, even though a contention was raised that applications were filed before the Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, no documents were produced before the Courts below to establish such contention. That apart, neither in the written statement filed by the original defendant or by the legal representative, the ownership was set up against any other person claiming to be a tenant under such person.

Therefore, if these aspects of the matter are kept in view and the judgments of the Courts below is perused, it is seen that the Courts below have referred to the evidence which was available on record and finding of fact has been recorded and a conclusion has been reached thereafter. In that view, in my opinion, there is no substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit stands disposed of. No costs.