PASSED IN RA NO.21/2010 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HUBLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMEENT DATED 21.12.2009 AND THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S. NO.688/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AT HUBLI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR POSSESSION AND MESNE PROFIT. THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Heard Sri. M.H.Patil, learned counsel for appellant on behalf of Sri.Prakash S Udakeri.
2. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.
3. This second appeal is filed rising the following substantial questions of law.
1) Whether as per Section 106 of TP Act, is it essential to make out grounds for not recovery of possession of suit property, in the reply notice itself?
2) Whether only the rent deed pertaining to annual tenancy requires to be registered?
3) Whether the rent deed pertaining to monthly rent does not requires any registered?
4) Whether the tenancy cannot be proved only on the bases of oral evidence on record?
4. This is the defendants second appeal questioning the validity of the decree passed in O.S.No.688/2008 which came to be confirmed in RA.No.21/2010.
5. A suit for possession and mesne profits in O.S.No.688/2008 was filed on the file of the Prl. Civil. Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hubbali contending that plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit property and father of the plaintiff inducted defendant into the suit property thereafter, the suit property fallen to the share of the plaintiff, and plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the property as there was automatic atonement of tenancy and also sought for payment of rent. Same was denied by the defendant. Defendant also denied the title of the plaintiff to suit property. As such, the trial was held in the suit and after full fledged trial, the trial Court held that the tenancy of the defendant was duly terminated and ordered for the possession of the suit property and directed to pay rent.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred the first appeal in RA.No.21/2010 on the file of the II Addl. Sr.C.J., Hubballi. Learned First Appellate Judge after securing the records and hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff by its judgment dated 30.11.2011.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that both Courts erred in holding that the plaintiff is an absolute owners of the property and there was no proper termination of the tenancy.
8. On perusal of the Court records, it is seen that the trial Court has taken into consideration that the tenancy of the defendant was properly terminated by issuing the statutory notice and defendant being inducted by the father of the plaintiff, which was not in dispute, and also the title in the suit property, and therefore decreed the suit.
9. The first appellate Court also dealt with the said aspect of the matter in detail and has concluded that the judgment of the trial Court was based on the sound reasons and also based on legal points.
10. In view of the above, when both Courts have decided on the question of facts, this Court being the Court of second appeal exercising power under Section 100 of CPC, does not find any substantial question of law to be considered in the present second appeal.
11. Thus, the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memo do not require further consideration. Accordingly, the regular second appeal is rejected. No order as to costs. Sd/- JUDGE Vb/-