Appeal challenging a trial court judgment in a possession suit. High Court held the judgment unsustainable due to lack of adequate reasoning per Order XX Rule 5 CPC and remitted it for fresh disposal.
Impugned judgment and decree dated 03.02.2020 in O.S.No.7478/2014 set aside and matter remitted to trial court for fresh disposal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RFA No. 65 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2022 (POS)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court Of Karnataka
APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE ALL R/AT NO.19 CHOWDAPPA ROAD, NEW A T HALLI EXTENSION, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.
…APPELLANTS
[BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A.,ADVOCATE (PH)]
RFA No. 65 of 2022
AND:
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.6/1, GOLLAR GANGANNA GALLI, 2ND FLOOR, NAGAMANI BUILDING, NAGARATHPET CROSS, BENGALURU-560002.
…RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (PH)]
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.02.2020 PASSED IN OS No.7478/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND DAMAGES.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and decree dated 03.02.2020
passed by III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (CCH-25) in O.S.No.7478/2014, this appeal is filed.
RFA No. 65 of 2022
RFA No. 65 of 2022
purchased suit property. Thereafter khata in respect of suit property was mutated in their name and they were paying property tax. It was further pleaded that even Bengaluru Development Authority (for short BDA ) had conveyed property to give effective title in respect of suit property to defendant no.4. Such being case, defendants with malafide and oblique claim filed O.S.No.8239/1997 for relief of partition and separate possession.
RFA No. 65 of 2022
was stated that suit property originally belonged to Iyyan Perumal. During his lifetime property was taken and BDA had issued notification for acquisition of entire survey number in which site was situated. It was stated that there were four residential houses built over site of defendants. There was a toilet situated therein and electricity connection was obtained. It was stated that residential premises were leased out to tenants and defendants were collecting rent. It was specifically contended that defendant no.4 had not delivered possession of suit property to anybody much less to power of attorney holder. It was stated that since defendants were in possession, suit filed for possession after 25 years, was barred by limitation.
lines.
issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove their title to the suit property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants have illegally trespassed in the suit property?
RFA No. 65 of 2022
3. Whether the defendants prove the suit is barred by limitation?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as prayed?
5. What order or decree?
Exhibits P1 to P.31 were marked. Defendant no.1 was
examined as DW.1 and Exhibits D1 to D 63 were marked.
and 2 in affirmative, issue no.3 in negative and issue no.4 partly in affirmative and issue no.5 by decreeing suit in part directing defendants no.1 to 5 and their men/tenants to hand over vacant possession of suit schedule property with 1 square shed as it is to plaintiffs no1. and 2 forthwith and ordered to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- per month as damages from January, 2014 till delivery of possession to plaintiffs no.1 and 2.
RFA No. 65 of 2022
referred to documentary evidence and contention on pleadings
and without any discussion recorded findings and decreed suit.
1 2001(2) KLJ 470
RFA No. 65 of 2022
for consideration is:
"Whether impugned judgment and decree passed by trial court is sustainable?"
" All these documents clearly show that Plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are owners of Suit Schedule Property, and Judgment and Decrees, Exs.P21 to 24 are against the Defendants. As far as, aspect of trespass is concerned, the Defendants No.1 to 5 , as shown in Paragraph NO.5 of this Judgment, have admitted in their Written Statement, that they arte in possession of Suit Schedule Property, and they have constructed 4 houses and let to tenants, and have been collecting rents, only the quantum of rent is not stated by them. Under these circumstances, wherein the Defendants No.1 to 5 have used the land of Plaintiffs No.1 and 2, and illegally put construction of 4 sheds, the Court finds that, the Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are entitled to receive damages of Rs.5,000/- per month from January 2014 till recovery of Possession, from Defendants No.1 to 5, and accordingly, Issues No.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative, and Issue No.4 is answered Partly in the Affirmative.
RFA No. 65 of 2022
reasoning as that of Civil Court. Hence without much ado, point for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently, following :
ORDER
Impugned judgment and decree dated 03.02.2020 passed by III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-25) in O.S.No.7478/2014, is set aside as being in violation of Order XX Rule 5 of CPC.
Matter is remitted back to trial Court for refresh disposal in accordance with law.
All contentions of both parties are kept open.
It is clarified that there is no opinion expressed on merits.
Opportunity is reserved to parties to lead further evidence, if so desired.
Parties to appear before trial Court without awaiting for fresh notice on 16.01.2023.
On said date both parties shall stated whether they would lead further evidence. In case no further evidence is led, trial Court to
RFA No. 65 of 2022
consider evidence already on record, hear both parties and pass judgment on merits in accordance with law forthwith.
In case, they lead evidence, it shall record same and thereafter dispose of suit but as far as possible within 6 months.
Since appeal is remitted, appellant would be entitled for refund of full court fee as per Section 64 (1) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.
Sd/JUDGE
Psg*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court is sustainable due to lack of adequate reasons?
Whether the trial court applied its mind to the issues framed and material on record?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lakshmamma Vs. Kamalamma & Ors.Relied on¶64
Lakshmamma Vs. Kamalamma & Ors. 2001(2) KLJ 470
Sri Vinod & Ors.
Sri Manish Kumar Verma & Sri Mukesh Kumar Verma
Ravi V Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
