IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT A. DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF' DECEMBHQEE 2,910'-"' " BEFORE: THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE Regular Second No;""584V Between: u ' V4 Sri Puttaiah S / o Shettappa V Aged about 49.:ye.arsj _ ' Represexltedi"byA}his G:;P.A.'Holder"' ' " Sri D. Rju1tafi12idai*ah ' S/0 late Devaishetty ' Aged ab'oL1t"'j;yeéii€s"-- " _ --. Residv.ir1g_a_et AN'c.v,I)_ ;"~lo.6,_ Double Road SarasW_athipuramAe.. " Mysore = V. .. Appellant (By 'G . Ch:§ir1d:rvVas11:«3}s:}1araiah , Advocate) " S/'9 Shmttajppa Agedzabout 51 years Residing at N0.8O3, em Cross Sit'e._No.3, Bogadhi W.,vSy._.N0. 190/2 IQ Janathanagara Mysore .. _ [By Sri 'I'.l\§.Raghupathy, Advocate) 9 This regular second appeal is"fil'ed<imd'er"S'e(;tia)_n 100 CPC against the _~judgmer1t_ and_";_'dee'ree4 04.01.2010
passed in R..:\.,No..136/2007’onithewfile off
the II Additional District Mysor’e,frall”Q’wing the
appeal and etc.
This appeal cor£1ing.on_ this day, the
Court delivered the follovwingjp ” 0
Heard lvearriedlit:»otmsel”§for the appellant.
the plaintiff before the trial
court ejeotment of the defendant on
thielafooting thAat’vh.e~was the owner of the suit property,
0 the defendant in possession as a tenant.
‘deifendant did not pay rents, the plaintiff sued
for ejeoitment. The defendant resisted the suit on the
‘ground, that the plaintiff was not the owner and the s0~
Z
called title deed sought to be relied
unregistered document and therefore,
treated as a title deed. The plaintiff,_
emphasis on other docurnentstx. such asgfthc E§ath’a–..p
certificate, tax paid receipts’*a:nd notices’ the
local authority to S’Llb*Sta1″lVtlE.lt’:€3″‘:.:lf.ilg’~C.ElS€, he was
indeed recognised as property.
3. The the suit and in so
far asVavthe.cia.im:’1for arrears ‘of..re’nt and damages for use
and occupationflthe»trialeourt held that the same was
not established ~__an.d’ ‘rejected that part of the relief
The having been challenged in appeal
the lower appellate court has taken
exception’Vlr:tQ.i::the trial court having allowed the plaintiff
to mark. an unregistered sale deed in evidence and has
heldthat the contemporaneous documents, such as the
2
khatha certificate or the tax receipts
substitute title deeds and has held that-._::itv
establish the plaintiffs title to thlellls{,ii«t._
held that notwithstanding’ ‘ V .. A the j — .. L
circumstances, of the defendant whllel”ian7 ofie breath
Claiming to be a ._u.n’1*–egisteredllvsale deed
himself and also against
the plaintiff,2_”wlli::iile’vdenyings title. The lower
appellate thelplaintiff was required
to of the defendant’s
weaknesses orjll and therefore has
dismissed tli-e,__lsullit. is this, which is sought to be
e.hal1ef1ged’in the present second appeal.
._ and foremost, the plaintiff admittedly, did
not’ registered document in respect of the suit
‘property. The unregistered sale deed as rightly held by
Z
the lower appellate Court would not be
title in a suit for recovery of possession}gthoughl V’
unregistered sale deed Cannot aiways be negatechas for
instance, it could be used as an*agr–eernen1″.; of sale’ in aa,
suit for specific performance ofV”..cont-raevt if the
registration of the similar
analogy cannot be recovery of
possession ground that the
Elaintiff vthellgpxrloperty relying on an
unregistered there is no
substantial question’ would arise for
consideratgigim-; jwlowei” ‘appellate court having
re\lrerseAd« of the trial court is for good and
;_.,_va1id rea_son_. Th’e,refore, there is no merit in this appeal.
appeai”-i.s rejected.
sa/…
Judge