Dismissed

Smt. Kamala v. Smt. Padmavathi

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2021HRRP/68/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a revision petition challenging orders holding a civil suit necessary to resolve disputed landlord-tenant relationship and property ownership, dispensing with notice to respondents due to long pendency.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed; liberty to approach competent civil court was reserved, and notice to respondents was dispensed with.

Smt. Kamala Vs Smt. Padmavathi — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

H.R.R.P. NO. 68 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. KAMALA W/O LATE H. GOPALA BHANDARY, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT THARIGUDDE HOUSE, CHIKMUDNUR POST AND VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK - 575 401 REPRESENTED BY HER P.A. HOLDER SRI CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O LATE H. GOAPALA BHANDARY R/AT THARIGUDDE HOUSE, CHIKMUDNUR POST AND VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK - 575 402

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SHRI VISHWAJITH RAI M. AND SHRI K.N. JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. PADMAVATHI DEAD BY HER LR'S

¶13

1 . SRI RAVINDRA

¶14

2 . SRI RAGHAVENDRA

¶15

3 . CHANDRASHEKARA

¶16

4 . SHIVASHANKARA

¶17

5 . GEETHA

¶18

6 . SRINIVASA

¶19

¶20

7 . VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶21

8 . VENUGOPAL

¶22

ALL ARE CHILDREN OF LATE SEETHARAMA SHERIGARA MAJORS

¶23

R/AT DOOR NO.15-9-507 BANGLECHITHLU, BENDOOR WARD, MANGALURU - 575 002.

¶24

... RESPONDENTS

¶25

¶26

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 29.06.2016 PASSED IN R.R.P. NO.30/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE, CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 04.08.2010 PASSED IN H.R.C NO.28/2008 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT , MANGALORE D.K. AND ETC.

¶27

THIS HRRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for setting aside the order dated 29^th June, 2016 made in RRP. No.30/2010 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, confirming the order dated 4^th August, 2010 in HRC. No.28/2008 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMfC, D.K., Mangaluru.

¶30

¶31

The said petition had been filed seeking for eviction of the respondents therein. In the said proceedings, the relationship of landlord and tenant was disputed by the respondents. In view thereof, the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru, allowed the application filed by the respondents therein under Section 43(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and directed the petitioner therein to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights over the property in question.

¶32

In the revision petition filed in RRP. No.30/2010, the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge was upheld. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

I have gone through the orders passed by both the Courts below. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said orders. More so, when there is a serious dispute as regards the relationship of

¶34

¶35

landlord and tenant and of the petitioner being the owner of the property, all these aspects will have to be decided by a properly instituted suit before a civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶36

Hence, the petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction. It is made clear that the observations made in both the aforesaid orders would not come in the way of consideration of the suit to be filed in accordance with law. In view of the above order being passed and this revision petition being pending for five years at the stage of admission, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

VGH

Smt. Kamala v. Smt. Padmavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kamala v. Smt. Padmavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Chitra Bharadwaj Vs Smt K Radhika

Smt Munipujamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. L Shashidhar Vs the Competent Authority and Assistant Commissioner

R Ramesh Babu Vs Regional Commissioner

Sri Tamil Arasan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sanjeeva Poojary Vs State of Karnataka