ORDER : S.N. Satyanarayana, J. Defendant in SC No. 1203 of 2013 on the file of I Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, has come up in this revision petition impugning the judgment dated 26-4-2016, wherein suit filed by the plaintiff for an order of eviction is decreed in directing the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to plaintiff-landlord. 2. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are as under: Plaintiff is claiming that he is the owner of property bearing No. 2, formed in Katha No. 173, which had erstwhile Sy. No. 6/2A of Srigandada Kaval Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It is the case of plaintiff in the Court below that one Ramaswamy Iyer was the owner of property bearing Sy. No. 6/2A, bearing Katha No. 173, which measures to an extent of 18 guntas. Subsequently, Anantha Subramanya and A.V. Subramanya, son and grandson of said Ramaswamy Iyer sold the said land in favour of one Geraga Muniyappa in 1960 under a registered sale deed, which is not disputed by both the parties. 3. Both parties admit that Geraga Muniyappa, who acquired 18 guntas of land in aforesaid survey number had formed a private layout on said land and sold the sites formed thereon to various persons by executing agreements of sale executed in their favour and to further strengthen their claim over the property, it is stated that he has executed General Power of Attorney with reference to each site, which is sold in favour of various persons. 4. Further, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is purchaser of property bearing No. 2 formed in Sy. No. 6/2A bearing Katha No. 173 of Srigandadil Kavalu Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It is stated that said Geraga Muniyappa sold the suit schedule property bearing No. 2 in favour of one P. Shanmugam, from whom Power of Attorney was taken by one Srinivasa Pujari, who in turn sold the property to plaintiff in the Court below vide sale deed dated 5-3-2004, which would explain the title of plaintiff to suit schedule property, which is not in dispute. The dispute is with reference to the identity of suit schedule property as the property, which is in occupation of defendant. 5. The dispute is with reference to the identity of suit schedule property as the property, which is in occupation of defendant. 5. In the said suit, the defendant has taken a defence that she is in possession of property bearing No. 3, which is part of Katha No. 173 in Sy. No. 6/2A, which is said to be acquired by her under agreement of sale and General Power of Attorney dated 16-2-1981 executed by very same Geraga Muniyappa, from whom plaintiff's erstwhile vendor is said to have purchased property bearing No. 2. It is contended that based on that, she has been in possession of said property, which according to her measures 70 feet East to West and 55 feet North to South. Whereas, the property which is purchased by plaintiff under sale deed dated 5-3-2004 measures 22+50/2 feet East to West and 67 feet North to South as per the schedule in said sale deed, which is at Ex. P. 1 before the Court below. 6. It is seen that prior to initiating eviction proceedings, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice on 11-9-2013, which is at Ex. P. 16, to the defendant calling upon her to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The said notice has come back with an endorsement that intimation of the registered post being sent to her was given to defendant, however, she did not claim the said document in spite of intimation being given to her. Thereafter, eviction petition was filed on 7-10-2013. 7. In the suit also, when summons was sent to defendant, the same has come back with an endorsement that she has refused to receive the summons resulting in she being placed ex parte. However, subsequently, defendant entered appearance and filed her written statement to the effect that she is not tenant under plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property and suit schedule property is not the property bearing property No. 2, instead, it is a portion of property bearing No. 3, which is belonging to her. 8. In this background, it is seen that subsequent to summons being issued to defendant and subsequent to she entering appearance and before filing written statement on 15-4-2014, a partition deed is effected and registered in respect of property bearing No. 3 said to have purchased by her from Geraga Muniyappa under Power of Attorney dated 16-2-1981. 8. In this background, it is seen that subsequent to summons being issued to defendant and subsequent to she entering appearance and before filing written statement on 15-4-2014, a partition deed is effected and registered in respect of property bearing No. 3 said to have purchased by her from Geraga Muniyappa under Power of Attorney dated 16-2-1981. It is seen that in the partition deed though defendant-Shivarudramma w/o Nagaiah had in all four daughters, she has partitioned the suit schedule property between herself and her two unmarried daughters in allotting a share to each of them and retaining a share for herself. Thereafter, she has filed the written statement on 15-4-2004 taking a specific stand that she is not the tenant under plaintiff. On the contrary, she is the lawful owner residing in a portion of property belonging to her bearing No. 3 formed in Katha No. 173, Sy. No. 6/2A of Srigandada Kavalu Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. 9. It is seen that prior to issuance of legal notice to defendant and prior to she getting the partition deed executed and registered between herself and her two unmarried daughters on 7-4-2014, there is not a single piece of document which would indicate that she is the owner of property bearing No. 3 in Katha No. 173 of Sy. No. 6/2A belonging to Geraga Muniyappa. It is only with this document everything is initiated to demonstrate as if she is in possession of suit schedule property as owner of said property and that, said property though defined as part of property No. 2 in Katha No. 173, is provided a separate number as property No. 3 in very same Katha No. 173 and sold in her favour by Geraga Muniyappa under General Power of Attorney dated 16-2-1981. On this premise, she has proceeded to defend the suit, which-was filed by plaintiff. 10. In the proceedings before the Court below, the Court below has gone thread bare into the pleadings as well as documents which were available on record, framed the points for consideration and thereafter, after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to decree the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking eviction. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has come up in this appeal. 11. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has come up in this appeal. 11. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Perused the judgment impugned with reference to the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record. On going through the same, it is seen that in the instant proceedings the plaintiff has produced and relied upon 21 documents. Out of that Ex. P. 1 is the sale deed, under which he has acquired title to the property in question, which is executed in his favour on 5-3-2004. Ex. P. 2 is the acknowledgement for having applied for Katha Certificate, which is of the year 2012. Ex. P. 3 is the Katha Certificate. Exs. P. 4 and P. 5 are the tax paid receipts with reference to suit schedule property. Ex. P. 6 is the extract of property register maintained by BBMP with reference to property number, measurement and also the documents showing the name of owner of property. Exs. P. 7 to P. 9 are the electricity bills. Exs. P. 10 to P. 13 are said to be the counter foil of rent receipts in respect of the property let out to defendant. Ex. P. 14 is the postal receipt for having sent legal notice to defendant. Ex. P. 15 is the returned cover. Ex. P. 16 is the copy of legal notice. Exs. P. 17, P. 18 and P. 19 are the rent receipts issued by plaintiff in favour of P.W. 2-another tenant residing in a portion of same property. Ex. P. 20 is the rent agreement entered into between plaintiff and P.W. 2 and Ex. P. 21 is the LIC policy of P.W. 2 to demonstrate that he is residing in a portion of suit schedule property, which is next to the property rented out to defendant. 12. To substantiate these 21 documents, the plaintiff has adduced evidence as P.W. 1. He also examined one of the tenants of his property, namely Sri Eshwar Rao as P.W. 2. Plaintiff and P.W. 2 together have stated that a portion of suit schedule property is in possession of defendant and next to that is the portion of property, which is let out to P.W. 2 and both are residing in said property as tenants under plaintiff. 13. Plaintiff and P.W. 2 together have stated that a portion of suit schedule property is in possession of defendant and next to that is the portion of property, which is let out to P.W. 2 and both are residing in said property as tenants under plaintiff. 13. Per contra, the defendant adduced evidence by herself, wherein besides claiming her title, she has tried to set up a counter-claim with reference to a portion of suit schedule property. In support of her case, she has produced in all 97 documents and tried to substantiate her title to a portion of suit schedule property as independent property bearing No. 3 and not as the property bearing No. 2 belonging to plaintiff. First of the documents relied upon by her is Ex. D. 1-certified copy of sale deed in favour of Geraga Muniyappa executed by Anantha Subramanya s/o Ramaswamy Iyer and his son A.V. Subramanya. Ex. D. 2 is permission granted by the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police to the husband of defendant for conducting a strike from Shivananda Circle to K.K. Guest House Junction. Exs. D. 3 to D. 10 are various other documents, which according to her are the documents which would establish her title to property bearing No. 3 in Katha No. 173 of Sy. No. 6/2A, which cannot be accepted as documents supporting her title to said property. 14. Exs. D. 11 to D. 13 are the three tax paid receipts dated 30-4-2015 for having paid tax for the year 2015. She has also produced other 21 tax paid receipts at Exs. D. 71 to D. 91, which are for the years from 1982 to 2014 and all of which are paid on the same day i.e., on 22-5-2014 i.e., immediately after the partition deed is effected between herself and her two unmarried daughters on 7-4-2014. The documents at Exs. D. 46 to D. 70 are 25 bills issued by BESCOM. Exs. D. 30 to D. 44 are 15 receipts of the year 2015. Exs. P. 20 to P. 28, are the 9 water bills, which are for the year 2014-2015. Exs. D. 15 and D. 16 are the encumbrance certificates, which are relied upon by the defendant to show encumbrance in respect of property No. 3 in Katha No. 173 of Sy. Exs. P. 20 to P. 28, are the 9 water bills, which are for the year 2014-2015. Exs. D. 15 and D. 16 are the encumbrance certificates, which are relied upon by the defendant to show encumbrance in respect of property No. 3 in Katha No. 173 of Sy. No. 6/2A of Srigandada Kavalu Village, which clearly demonstrate that between 1980 viz., year of sale deed said to be executed in favour of defendant and 29-4-2014 viz., date of encumbrance certificate, no transaction has taken place, except the partition deed dated 7-4-2014. 15. With this, the entire material on record clearly indicate that water supply receipts, electricity receipts, tax paid receipts are all after execution of partition deed dated 7-4-2014. Even for the partition deed, there is no mother deed, which would create right or title in her to effect partition of property No. 3 in Katha No. 173 of Sy. No. 6/2A of Srigandada Kavalu Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. However, in this regard what is produced by defendant is Ex. D. 1. 16. Admittedly, Ex. D. 1 is the certified copy of sale deed executed in favour of Geraga Muniyappa. It is not in dispute that Geraga Muniyappa had formed several sites in Sy. No. 6/2A and sold them in favour of various person under agreement of sale as well as General Power of Attorney. Based on that, the purchasers have created documents of title in their favour at a later stage. As could be seen, in the instant case, under Ex. P. 1 property No. 2 is registered in favour of plaintiff through one of the General Power of Attorney holder, who secured title to the said property from Geraga Muniyappa. However, there is no such document to demonstrate that, similarly Site No. 3 is conveyed either in favour of defendant or her husband at any point of time. It is seen that without there being any mother deed i.e., the document of title creating right, title and interest in favour of either defendant or her husband or any of their children, partition deed is effected. Therefore, the Court below-has not rightly believed the same. 17. Further, all the tax paid receipts which emanates thereafter, not only for subsequent years but also for previous years are generated on 22-5-2014 i.e., subsequent to partition deed. Therefore, the Court below-has not rightly believed the same. 17. Further, all the tax paid receipts which emanates thereafter, not only for subsequent years but also for previous years are generated on 22-5-2014 i.e., subsequent to partition deed. Similar is the situation in respect of tax paid receipts, which are at Exs. D. 11 to D. 13, which have come into place on 30-4-2014 for the assessment year 2015-2016. 18. With this, it is clearly seen that an attempt is there on the part of defendant in the Court below, where instead of independently stating that she is not the tenant and leaving the matter at that, another parallel set of documents is created without the support of original document viz., creating title either in favour of defendant or anybody in their family with reference to property No. 3 and a defence is build in the air to demonstrate as if the defendant is owner of property No. 3, in Katha No. 173 of Sy. No. 6/2A, formed on land purchased by Geraga Muniyappa, in which he has formed a layout. 19. Similar is the oral evidence of defendant, wherein she goes to the extent of producing several photographs, which are at Exs. D. 92, D. 93, D. 95 and D. 96 to demonstrate that the houses shown in those photographs are the houses, which are built on property No. 3 and not on suit schedule property as defined in schedule to the original suit. The evidence of defendant in trying to demonstrate that the houses shown in photographs at Exs. D. 92, D. 93, D. 95 and D. 96 in fact are not the houses belonging to defendant, on the contrary, they are the houses belonging to plaintiff, in which P.W. 2 is in occupation which is the house with its door painted in blue colour. 20. It is seen that in the evidence of P.W. 2, he has clearly stated that the house, which is situated on the eastern side of that property (the premises which is rented out to him) and which is another house shown in the very same photograph, is the house which is in occupation of defendant. 20. It is seen that in the evidence of P.W. 2, he has clearly stated that the house, which is situated on the eastern side of that property (the premises which is rented out to him) and which is another house shown in the very same photograph, is the house which is in occupation of defendant. If that is accepted with reference to schedule to suit property, where on the eastern side of property No. 2 is property No. 1, on the western side is property No, 3 and on the northern side is a private property and southern side is the BWSSB service road through which property No. 2, which is suit schedule property has got access to all the units, which are built thereon. If that is accepted, then as per Ex. D. 95 and as per the evidence of P.W. 2, the house which is shown as the house belonging to P.W. 2 is accepted and the property on its eastern side is the house, which is in occupation of defendant, the same cannot be the house which is property No. 3 formed in Katha No. 173. If the house which is shown in blue door in Ex. D. 95 is accepted as the property in occupation of defendant, probably it would have given credence to the story built by defendant to demonstrate that she is the owner of property bearing No. 3. In the instant case, even that theory is lost, for the reason that on the eastern side of property No. 2 is property No. 1 and if the occupation of P.W. 2 with reference to blue door house in Ex. D. 95 is accepted, another house which is on the eastern side of said house, which is said to be the house in occupation of defendant, then it cannot be property No. 3, even otherwise. 21. Therefore, even with reference to schedule and description, if the suit schedule property vis-a-vis alleged property of defendant is analysed carefully, as done by the Court below, it is clearly seen that at every stage there is an attempt by defendant to mislead the Court to demonstrate as if she is in possession of suit schedule- property as owner thereof and said property is not the property as defined in suit, but it is the property as defined in schedule to Ex. D. 7 i.e., partition deed, which cannot be believed. This would clearly demonstrate to what extent a person can go, if he/she decides to set up an adverse claim in such an ingenious manner to demonstrate as if suit schedule itself is not in existence and the litigation, which is initiated against her is a false and frivolous litigation, to knock off of the property of an innocent person. But the fact is otherwise, as seen by the Court below while considering the first point for consideration, which was framed in the Court below with reference to whether plaintiff proves that defendant is tenant under him on monthly rent and he has terminated tenancy by issuing legal notice. 22. In fact, this Court will have to place on record the pains taken by the Court below in meticulously analysing each and every document and also exposing the modus operandi adopted by the defendant in trying to create an adverse title to the property of plaintiff depicting as if it is an independent property, which she has purchased under a General Power of Attorney dated 16-2-1981. 23. At this juncture, it may not be out of place to bring on record that the defendant in the Court below is not examined on one day. She has undergone cross-examination on four different dates commencing from 21-1-2016 to 28-3-2016. On all the dates, she has stated that she is in custody of document of title to property No. 3. However, all that she has produced is only one registered partition deed registered on 7-4-2014 and a bundle of tax paid receipts amounting to 21, which have come into existence on same day i.e., on 22-5-2014 and 3 tax paid receipts for the subsequent years, which have come into place on 30-4-2015. It is seen that these are the only documents that she was able to produce to demonstrate that she is the owner. However, the documents for all the bald claims that she has made with reference to General Power of Attorney executed in her favour on 16-2-1981, sale deed created in her favour and various other documents right from 16-2-1981 till the date of execution of partition deed on 7-4-2014 are not produced and relied upon and those non-existing documents have not seen light of the day at any point of time. 24. 24. In this background, it is clearly seen that the defendant has miserably failed to establish her independent right and title to property No. 3, which is said to be part of Katha No. 173 formed in Sy. No. 6/2 A of Srigandada Kavalu Village, Bangalore North Taluk. Therefore, the Court below was fully justified in passing the order of eviction directing her to quit and deliver vacant possession of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff in SC No. 1203 of 2013. In that view of the matter, this Court find that there are no justifiable grounds to admit this revision petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of revision petition, I.A. No. I of 2016 filed seeking stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.