IN THE HIGH comm op' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH BAY OF MARCSH. I? ~
BEFORE V ' V % 4'
THE i-IOPFBLE MR. JUSTICE ASFIQK B." .HIIacH;:gE§§:%%%V :2 i
'R.F.A.No.1386l25i'¥{
BETWEEN: " %
PTHiPPAiA1~1
S/O LATE POPPAIAH
AGEDABoU'M9YEA:2s,_--_ _, =
R/O Nc>.1[64,J B1.oCK,i _ '
om SARWAR LANE . '
SESHADWPURAM, _
BANGALORE-56QMQ20'=._" " _ _ '
if M % APPELLANT
'r.(BY__$RiV V"1'IVSHE¥ANA3?H,'ADVOCATE)
AND _ _
JEEVARATHNAM
S/O LATE POPPAIAH _
AGED. ABOUT446 YEARS, " _
RESi'D§N'3 XN" A 'P.T:+.flBoU1' 42 YEARS
«A a , ' V % ?1.i1§)' 4%sR1'%ViNo%:9
ij 'S/0 f;.A'¥'E JEEVARATHNAM
T ABOUT 21 YEARS
~ . a ' ~ ésks VIJAY
S] O LATE JEEVARATHNAM
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
1(d) SR1 V§C'i'OR
S/O LATE JEEVARATHNAM
MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS
NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MCYFHER I
SMT. DEENAMMA
1(3) Ms. FLORENCE =
DXO LATE JEEVARATHDEAM
MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER
NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER"
SMT. DEENAMMA V E
ALLARE R/A No.1/64. _ .
'A' BLOCK, om sanwap LANR':"' -
smsmmetpuaamfi. j
BANGALORE«56Q€}20;--'" _ _ _
(AMEND1333 AS PlfJR'i..(3RDE1?.S.D'F;_18.4;'06]
A. .... RESPONDENTS
‘ (BYSRI P B’ awe’, ADV’.’)=CA’I”E)
– THIS RFA IS FEEL}-Ui»»Cf’C AGAiNS’I’ THE JUDGMENT
AN!) DEGREE DATE!) £27.9.”.200-E. PASSED IN 0.8. NO. 15358/2001 ON
‘THE FILE OF THE XXVI}! EDIEL. “CIVIL JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT,
BANGALORE (GCCH-29). PARTLY EEECREEING THE SUIT F’§LI3D BY THE
RESRONDENT’~’§~IER’EIN BY ‘E)IR_E(‘lT’ING THE APPELLANT I-IEI'<'E¥N TO
DEL2VEI€–AVACAN'I5"?O¥3SESSION OF' 8 SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO THE
f?ESPC}NDEf€T_V HEREMM 'WITHIN 3 MONTHS FROM THE BATE OF
ORDER.' V
This on fin' hea:tm' g this day, Court dciivercd
the foI1_owing.-"— A
s
is dimcted ag&st the judgacnt, order and
by the Court cf XXVIII Add}. City Civil Judge, Mayo
um, Bangalore in O.S.No.15358/2001.
REM
validity of the sale deed and the gift deed. Based _
pleadings, the Trial Court fraxned the foflowing issuer f, .
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
absolute owner of schedulefi A .
Whether the plaintiff
Whether the plaintifi’ of
plaintiff and defendant e2r:e¢u_ted_ a Gif£..de*ed on
29.9.2000 in favoutj ‘ef this
Whether the defendant is the lessee
under the Bzsargalmre’ Lieu: in respect of
V
the _
Whether d::fai1dan:e’ee;3rdvas i:1V?).at’ he is in lawful
posseeeiéirr bf’ eehetiuleptupcrfies?
Wliether enfifled for damages?
Whether the ‘entitled for pessession and
meene profits? A ”
“or verder?
4; get himself examined as max and
as P’W~2 marking Exuf’. 1 to 13.9. The
‘A ‘. examined as DW-1 merldng docummlts
F roe. 15. On considering the pleadings, era} and
evidence placed 011. its record, the Trial Court
.’ar1e’wered the cententieus issues in favour of the respondent
93%
parties namely the appellant,
as is evident fimm the appellant
charges, either by way of licence fee or as
.. , i Ito point of time, the respondent and Rajamma
‘ the appellant paying the monthly charges. On the
and decreed the suit directing the appellant to defiv§””veee:t€ H
possession of ‘B’ schedule property to the respende-me: Z ”
menths and the separate enquiry in it
profits.
5. Aggrieved by the afezreeaidéej-ueifigtzrlerat, -appeal is
preferred.
6. Sri thei ” for the
appellant submits VS»Int.Ra_jamma was
not entitled favour. It is only
the appellant, of the Corpemtion and
who was in ‘eehedule properties who was
entitleti ofttthe sale deed. This position was
3811
appellant joining the services of the Corporation, the ”
‘A’ property stood re-allotted tn the appellant is 3 V’ l
7. Sri -P.B.Raju, the lmmecl counsél fcéf ti’*1e:7f.
wsuld pray for the dismissal of
8. 1 have browsed §::g.l1=>.t1 the
sale deed in respect of ‘A’ is the g:ii’€:
dfifid 636011166 333′ “sf respondent.
Ex.P.5 is the t9 the efihct that the the name of the
respondent the legal notice, issued on
behalf of the hteply tllcreto, respectively. I
am ‘nstllm. £0 five my acceptance to the submission
glrged because the validity of the
deed cannot be assailed in collateral
–. ;11″‘ “1gs.__ ‘ g chosen not ts challenge the sale deed
deed, the appellant cannot resist the
~ with any rate of success. The appellant has
jiot filed any suit for mandatoxy injunctisn seeking
I93!-I
direction to the Corporation to execute the sale
favour. Based on the statement, Ex.D.13
deductions fi’om the salary of the %a;ppe11ant fine
endorsement at Ex.IZ).14 issued by the
month the house rent aflowance Rs; I2_3EI”‘~
deducted frem his salary, it czfimgot
of the schedule ‘A’ preperty” $ from
Smt.Rajamma to her; fippeflant has
not examined any particularly the
signatories to
9. The appellant is on the lines
cf t1;c.respQ!i§iénf deed by paying money to his
mot}1e1j..’ Q1″ suggestion is put to_ the respondent
The case 01′ the respondent is fully
fixpifiorted the mother of both the panic’ S hrzmin.
= sets: incunsistency in the stand of the
In one placa he claims to he a licensee and in
place, he claims to be the lesser under the
RBH
Corperation. None at’ the exhibits placed on the record of
Court are remotely indicative of the re-allo1:I1:1enl::”
schedule ‘A’ property to the appellant. A
11. Thus, I dun not find aI1y_m.eI’it iitthis V.
Trial Court cannot be held to be at suit
directing the appellant to poseeseion of
the schedule ‘B’ property to cextaitl
aspects of the matte? It is not in
dispute that the are brothers.
They have roof fer aver three
decades. are being used for
residential ll zeppellant is not a well placed
perser1;he_’ is only a, Po a In the sezvxces of the
these aspects into prawatic
eonsicleratidiz, Kcleem it necessary and just to grant some
vacgfihg. the schedule ‘B’ property by the appellant.
/} view, the ends cf justice would be met by
fifilt
my gantring time to the appellant to vacate the ‘ill’ * ”
prowrty up to 16.09.2010.
12. The facts and circumstaiicfis ofVi;l1é.”caVsc:~ vi
granting of one more relief tfa the i ii
factual matrix of this case is’ At’i:1.¢:: Cantirlued to
pay the amaunts for aimtit of licence
fee or rental c:i1arg’¢s.§~.: should not be
fastened with V ioigcupation charges
again. At thisiijuncutiniié,» the learned counsel for
the respondent the next portion of tha
erdqirgoulci. aside that part of the Trial
»ji1dgm@i1€i directs enquiry into mesnc pmfits,
ii that the msponcient would net claim
qxicsne The Coilrt places on record its
a§1i@rE_’a1{iG:1«-of tile fair stand taken by Sri P.B.Raju,
’11’ In the result, the judgncnt under appeal is
upheld. Its directiun to the appellant to hand
ovér tha possession of the ‘B’ schedule property is upheld but
3.3% T
H
by giving time to vacate it upto 16.09.2010. The
of Sri P.B.Raju that the respondent Sl’§£53.fi ilat
profit is placed on record.
No order as to casts.
bvr