Disposed

P. Gokuldas Bhat, v. Sri. Laxmi Venkatramana Temple

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2023RSA/642/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the appellants' undertaking which contradicted earlier agreements and granted ten days to file a new undertaking for vacant possession within nine months and rent payment within six months, then disposed of the Second Appeals.

What did the court decide?

Ten days granted to file undertaking for vacant possession and rent payment; Second appeals disposed of.

P. Gokuldas Bhat, Vs Sri. Laxmi Venkatramana Temple — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43334 RSA No. 642 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.642 OF 2023 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

P.GOKULDAS BHAT S/O P.SADASHIVA BHAT AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶9

K.RAJESH PRABHU S/O LATE K.VASUDEVA PRABHU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶10

K.YOGISH PRABHU S/O LATE K.VASUDEVA PRABHU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NEAR ULLAS BAR AND RESTAURANT UPPINANGADY VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK D.K.-574 201

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. LAXMI VENKATRAMANA TEMPLE UPPINANGADY PUTTUR TALUK,

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43334 RSA No. 642 of 2023

¶18

D.K.-574 201 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.02.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.10/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.03.2021 PASSED IN O.S. NO.408/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PUTTUR, D.K AND ETC.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD IN ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

On the previous date of hearing though the appellants are called upon to file undertaking by way of affidavits indicating that they will handover vacant possession within eight months, but the undertaking filed in the form of affidavits indicating that they would handover the vacant possession within nine months from

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:43334 RSA No. 642 of 2023

¶27

today runs contrary to what was agreed on the previous date.

¶28

Therefore, the undertaking by way of affidavits

¶29

furnished before this Court are rejected.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

¶31

would submit to this Court that appropriate undertaking will be filed within 10 days from today. Appellants would also accept the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs insofar as arrears of rent is concerned. On instructions, he has made a statement that his clients would make arrangements to pay arrears.

¶32

Therefore, ten days time is granted to the

¶33

appellants to file an undertaking that he would handover vacant possession within nine months i.e., on or before 31.07.2024.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:43334 RSA No. 642 of 2023

¶36

It is made clear that they shall also give

¶37

undertaking indicating that all arrears of rent will be paid within a period of six months.

¶38

The appellants shall also indicate in the

¶39

affidavits that they will not commit any default in paying the agreed rent and the same shall be reflected in the undertaking. The undertaking to be tendered within 10 days.

¶40

In the light of the undertaking given by the

¶41

appellants, the second appeal stands disposed off.

¶42

It is made clear that the appellants shall not seek

¶43

any further extension of time and the same shall be indicated in the Affidavits.

JUDGE

Sd/-

NBM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

P. Gokuldas Bhat, v. Sri. Laxmi Venkatramana Temple

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Gokuldas Bhat, v. Sri. Laxmi Venkatramana Temple

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Saraswathamma Vs Smt Lakshmamma

H.M. Omprakash Vs the Chief Secretary

Babu Rajendran Vs Susheelamma

Sri.Shivalingaiah Vs Smt.Mahadevamma

Sri. Venkataswamy @ Venkataswamy Reddy Vs Sri. B. Venkataswamy Reddy

Shantaiah Vs Smt. Prema