Suit for ejectment by a plaintiff claiming ownership through a registered gift deed from her father, against tenants who challenged her title and alleged rent payment to another. Courts below decreed ejectment; the High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed both second appeals.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2015 (RES) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2015
IN RSA 257 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
MR T K MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS HOSABHARATHI HOTEL PANDAVAPURA RAILWAY STATION PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VISHAL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SOMASHEKARA K M., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
SMT Y K DHANALAKSHMI W/O SRI PRABHUDEVA D/O SRI YALAKKIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O KYATHANAHALLT VILLAGE PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. L PAPANNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.10.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.14/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., PANDAVAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.03.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.32/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC., PANDAVAPURA.
IN RSA 258 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
SRI. BETTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS VINAYAKA HARDWARE ENTERPRISES PANDAVAPURA RAILWAY STATION PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VISHAL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SOMASHEKARA K M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT Y K DHANALAKSHMI W/O SRI PRABHUDEVA D/O SRI YALAKKIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O KYATHANAHALLT VILLAGE PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. L PAPANNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.10.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.12/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., PANDAVAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.03.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.65/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC., PANDAVAPURA.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
These two Regular Second appeals are filed by the appellants challenging the judgments and decrees dated 18-10-2014 passed in R.A.Nos.12/2013 and 14/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura, confirming the judgments and decrees dated 13-03-2013 passed in O.S.Nos.65/2004 and 32/2004 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, JMFC, Pandavapura.
It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff's father by name Yalakki Gowda was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, and the said suit property was let out in favor of the defendants on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/in O.S.No.32/2004 and Rs.8,500/- in O.S.No.65/2004
each. The defendants are in possession of the suit property as tenants. During the lifetime of Yalakki Gowda, he executed the registered gift deed dated 28-10-2002 in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by the registered gift deed dated 28-10-2002. The plaintiff requested the defendants to attorn her as an owner of the suit property and requested to pay the due rents from the date of execution of the registered gift deed. The defendants have failed to pay the rent to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff was issued legal notice for terminating the tenancy. The said notices were duly served to the defendants. Despite service of notices, the defendants failed to vacate the premises. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file suit for ejectment.
possession of the suit property as tenants and the plaintiff has not terminated the tenancy in accordance with the law. It is also contended that, after the death of Yalakki Gowda, the defendants started paying rent to the brother of the plaintiff namely K.Y.Keshavaswamy and he was receiving rent. Therefore, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
and examined 3 witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and got marked 3 documents, which are marked as Exs.P.1 to 3(d). In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and examined one witness as DW.2 and got marked 2 documents as Exs.D.1 and D2(a).
dated 28-10-2002 in favor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the registered gift deed marked as Ex.P3 and Ex.P6 in both the cases, which discloses that father of the plaintiff gifted the suit property in favor of the plaintiff and after execution of registered gift deed by father of plaintiff, the plaintiff requested the defendants to attorn her as their landlord and pay the rents to her. The defendants have failed to pay the rent. The plaintiff was issued a legal notice which is marked as Ex.P.1, for terminating the tenancy of the defendants, calling upon the defendants to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the premises. Though notices were duly served upon the defendants, the defendants did not reply to the legal notices.
they are in possession of the suit property as tenants and the plaintiff by the registered gift deed became the absolute owner of the suit property and the plaintiff by issuing legal notice terminated the tenancy of the defendants. After termination, the defendants have no right to continue in the possession of the suit properties. Hence, the Courts below, by considering the oral and documentary evidence have rightly held that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the defendants are in possession of the suit properties as tenants, and the tenancy was terminated and have rightly passed the judgments. Though the plaintiff has admitted that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property, the tenants are estopped to challenge the title of the plaintiff as per Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
NC: 2024:KHC:34991 RSA No. 257 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 258 of 2015
these appeals. I concur with the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below.
ORDER
The appeals are dismissed.
The judgments and decrees passed by the
Courts below are hereby confirmed.
No order as to the costs.
In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IA, if any,
does not survive for consideration and is accordingly
disposed of.
Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE
SKS, SRK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff became absolute owner of the suit property through a registered gift deed and could seek ejectment of the tenants
Whether the tenants were estopped from challenging the plaintiff's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act after tenancy was terminated by legal notice
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr T K Mohammed
Sri. Bettaswamy
Smt Y K Dhanalakshmi
Ashok S.Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
