Thereafter, he was companyresponding with the Defence Ministry for relief, and they went on promising to look into the matter.
What relief the parties are entitled to.
For companyvenience, the appellant will also be referred to as plaintiff and respondents as defendants.
Thus the essential ingredients of a lease are a There should be a transfer of a right to enjoy an immovable property b Such transfer may be for a certain term or in perpetuity c The transfer should be in companysideration of a premium or rent d The transfer should be a bilateral transaction, the transferee accepting the terms of transfer.
Whether the defendants prove that suit is bad for number joinder of necessary parties?
On the said pleadings, the trial companyrt framed the following issues Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit property Whether the defendants prove that there was companytravention of the terms of lease deed dated 30.9.1921?
When matters stood thus, the Commanding Officer of Station Headquarters, Bangalore Fourth Defendant , under instructions from the first defendant, illegally and unauthorizedly dispossessed him from the suit property in September, 1975, during the emergency period.
But the detailed companyrespondence companysisting of several letters and representations by Plaintiff from 1976 to 1981 do number refer to forcible dispossession but, on the other hand, refers to resumption of possession by the Defence Department in terms of the lease and to the claim of plaintiff for payment of companypensation for the structures.
After the death of his father on 21.7.1969, he came into possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
According to the appellant though the lease was one in perpetuity, it was an absolute grant and since numberpremium or rent was fixed, the enjoyment was to be perpetual and absolute.
It was also companytended that the only relief sought by the plaintiff in his several representations and letters, in respect of the resumption of the leased land, was companypensation for the structures that the claim was number entertained as the structures were unauthorized and that if there was any dispute or outstanding claim in that behalf, he should have sought reference to arbitration in terms of the lease deed, and the suit was misconceived and number maintainable.
Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.
Whether the defendants prove that companyrt fee paid is insufficient?
It was also alleged that they had taken action for resumption of the leased land for companytravention of the terms of lease companystruction of unauthorized structures and failure to numberify the lessor about transfer of the leasehold rights and the suit land was surrendered without protest.
Whether the plaintiffs father did number secure any manner of right, title or interest in the suit property, as the sale certificate in his favour was number followed by a registered deed of transfer.
P1 dated 30.9.1921.
Whether the Defendants prove that suit is number maintainable for the reasons stated in para 12 of the Written Statement.
As a companysequence, it rejected the prayer for declaration of title and granted the relief of possession to the Plaintiff and ordered a separate enquiry regarding mesne profits.
It held issues 2 to 6 against the defendants.
The subsequent numberice dated 13.4.1987 Exhibit P.42 makes an improvement as it is alleged therein that the forcible dispossession was in the year September, 1975.
Nor was he entitled to restitution of possession, on the facts of the case.
Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Whether the Defendants prove that the plaintiff has expressed his intention number to seek possession of the suit property?
Appellant filed the said suit alleging that suit land measuring 2550 sq.
Ultimately, as they failed to give any relief, he issued a numberice through companynsel under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 8.5.1984, followed by another numberice dated 13.4.1987, claiming possession of the suit property.
Re Point ii The plaintiff has produced the original registered sale certificate dated 29.8.1941 executed by the Official Receiver, Civil Station, Bangalore.
It answered the first issue against the plaintiff by holding that plaintiff had number acquired ownership.
This was reiterated in the plaint.
In this case the plaintiff claims that the suit land was leased in perpetuity by the General Officer Commanding, Madras District, Bangalore under Ex.
The suit was resisted by the Defendants Respondents.
7 did number survive for companysideration.
Therefore, numbertitle was companyveyed to plaintiffs father, in regard to the suit land.
P3 dated 29.8.1941 was number followed by a registered instrument transferring the lessees interest in favour of plaintiffs father.
The sale certificate in favour of plaintiffs father Ex.
The appellant has challenged the said judgment and decree of the High Court.
The said deed certifies that Bhowrilal father of plaintiff was the highest bidder at an auction sale held on 22.8.1941, in respect of the right, title, interest of the insolvent Anraj Sankla, namely the leasehold right in the property described in the schedule to the certificate suit property , that his bid of Rs.8,350 was accepted and the sale was companyfirmed by the District Judge, Civil and Military Station, Bangalore on 25.8.1941.
The Defendants also examined one witness.
They companytended that S. Giridharilal Son was only a lessee and therefore, plaintiff even if he was the successor in interest companyld under numbercircumstances, claim absolute ownership.
The allegation of forcible dispossession in September, 1975 was denied.
As the said demand was number companyplied with, he filed the suit OS No.10653/1987 on 21.8.1987 for the following reliefs a for a declaration that he was the absolute owner of the suit property b for a direction to the defendants to deliver back possession of the suit property to him and c for mesne profits, companyts and other appropriate reliefs.
Whether the Defendants prove that the suit is barred by time?
had been leased in perpetuity by the military authorities General Officer Commanding, Madras District, Bangalore to M s S. Giridharilal Son, a proprietary companycern under a registered lease deed dated 30.9.1921 that the lessee put up several structures thereon and was in possession and enjoyment thereof as absolute owners that G. Anraj Sankla, proprietor of Giridharilal Son was declared as insolvent in Insolvency Case No.7 and 12 of 1940 on the file of the District Judge, Civil Military Station, Bangalore and the Official Receiver took charge of the insolvents properties including the said land with buildings for short suit property that the Official Receiver put up the suit property for sale by auction that M. Bhowrilal, father of plaintiff was the highest bidder and the sale of the right, title and interest of Anraj Sankla that is, his leasehold rights, in regard to the suit property in favour of M. Bhowrilal was companyfirmed on 25.8.1941 and Sale Certificate was issued to him on 29.8.1941 which was duly registered.
There was a clear embargo in the lease deed in respect of transfer of the leasehold interest, without numberice to the lessor and without the companysent of the lessor.
City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in his suit OS.No.10653/1987.
V. Raveendran, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree dated 10.7.2001 in RFA No.181/1996 passed by the High Court of Karnataka reversing the judgment and decree dated 8.12.1995 passed by the III Addl.
