This Regular Second Appeal challenges judgments decreing recovery of possession from tenants who failed to file written statements. The High Court found no error and dismissed the appeal.
Impugned judgments and decrees confirming possession suits are set aside; Second Appeal dismissed.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:41926 RSA No. 626 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 626 OF 2021 (POS)
BETWEEN:
W/O LATE HEMAREDDY
D/O LATE CHENNAKKA AND LATE DODDA
ABBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/A C K PALYA VILLAGE SAKALAVARA POST JIGANI HOBLI-560083 ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka
S/O LATE CHENNAKKA
AND LATE DODDA ABBAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A C K PALYA VILLAGE SAKALAVARA POST JIGANI HOBLI-560083 ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
S/O LATE CHENNAKKA AND LATE DODDA ABBAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NC: 2024:KHC:41926 RSA No. 626 of 2021
R/A C K PALYA VILLAGE SAKALAVARA POST JIGANI HOBLI-560083 ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
S/O LATE CHENNAKKA AND LATE DODDA ABBAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A C K PALYA VILLAGE SAKALAVARA POST JIGANI HOBLI-560083 ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
D/O LATE CHENNAKKA AND LATE DODDA ABBAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A C K PALYA VILLAGE SAKALAVARA POST JIGANI HOBLI-560083 ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. KRISHNA B J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
JIGANI HOBLI-560105 ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
W/O RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A HULLAHALLI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI-560105 ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
W/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A HULLAHALLI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI-560105 ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A HULLAHALLI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI-560105 ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.02.2021 PASSED IN RA.No.5057/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.11.2018 PASSED IN OS No.519/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL.TRIAL COURT DECREED THE SUIT. APPELLATE COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL SUIT FOR POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and decree dated 19.02.2021 passed in RA.No.5057/2018 by the III Additional District Judge & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Anekal and the Judgment and Decree dated 22.11.2018 passed in OS.No.519/2009 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Anekal.
NC: 2024:KHC:41926 RSA No. 626 of 2021
against the Defendants. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that they are the absolute owners of the Suit Schedule Property. The father of Plaintiff No.4 and the Father-in-Law of Plaintiff No.1 to 3 have purchased the Suit Schedule Property under a Registered Sale Deed dated 07.01.1970. The original Defendant is the sister of the father of Plaintiff No.4. The father of Plaintiff No.4 permitted the Defendant to reside in the Suit Schedule Property for a limited period. In the year 2000, the father of Plaintiff No.4 requested the Defendant to vacate the Suit Schedule Property, and it is contended that there was an oral agreement between the father of plaintiff No.4 and defendant, wherein Defendant agreed to pay Rs.500/- per month as rent in respect of Suit Schedule Property. The Father of Plaintiff No.4 passed away on 25.09.2001. The plaintiffs requested the Defendant to vacate and hand over the possession of the Suit Schedule Property, but Defendant refused to vacate and hand over the Suit Schedule Property. It is contended that the Defendant stopped paying the rent to the
plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs issued a legal notice on 16.02.2009 calling upon the Defendant to pay the rent arrears and vacate the Suit Schedule Property. Despite service of notice, Defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the Suit Schedule Property. Hence, a cause of action arises for the plaintiffs to file the suit for possession.
and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff with cost and directed the legal heirs of the defendant to vacate and hand over the possession of the Suit Schedule Property within one month from the date of the Judgment. Further directed the legal heirs of the deceased Defendant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month from 16.06.2009 till payment.
deceased Defendant. Learned counsel for the LR's of the deceased defendant submits that the trial court has not
provided sufficient opportunity to the defendant, as well as the LR's of the Defendant, to file the written statement and cross examine PW1. He submits that the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is in violation of the principle of natural justice. Hence, he submits that the Appellate court, without considering the said aspect, has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
month. The father of Plaintiff No.4 died on 25.09.2001, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. To establish that the plaintiffs are the owners of the Suit Schedule Property, they have produced a Registered Sale deed marked as Ex.P1, which discloses the father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 to plaintiff No.3, and the father of plaintiff No.4 had purchased the Suit Schedule Property under Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is the legal notice issued by the plaintiffs to the Defendant calling upon the Defendant to pay the rent arrears and vacate the Suit Schedule Property. Ex.P3 is the postal receipt, which discloses that plaintiffs have issued legal notice through RPAD to the Defendant. Ex.P4 is the Genealogical tree which discloses the plaintiff's family members. Ex.P5 is the death certificate of the father of plaintiff No.4. The trial court granted sufficient opportunity to the Defendant to file the written statement, the Defendant did not choose to file a written statement during her lifetime. The trial court has taken the written statement as not filed. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant died. The plaintiffs filed an application to
bring the legal heirs of the deceased Defendant. The said application was allowed, and LR's were brought on record. LR's of the Defendant did not choose to file the Written Statement. Based on the records produced by the plaintiffs, the trial court held that the plaintiffs are the owners of the Suit Schedule Property and the defendant is in possession of the Suit Schedule Property as a tenant and decreed the suit of the Plaintiff vide Judgment dated 22.11.2018. The LR's of the Defendant aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in OS.No.519/2009 filed in appeal in R.A.No.5057/2018. The Appellate court has recorded the finding that despite granting sufficient opportunity to the Original Defendant and LR's of the deceased Defendant, they did not participate in the proceedings by filing the written statement, and they did not cross examine PW1. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded the finding of facts against the LR's of deceased Defendant. Even in this appeal also, the LR's of the deceased Defendant have not produced any records to establish the nature of their possession over the Suit
Schedule Property. Both the courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. I do find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i) Appeal is dismissed .
ii) The Judgments and decrees passed by the
courts below are hereby confirmed.
iii) No order as to cost.
Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE
RCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgments disallowing written statements and decreing possession are erroneous or raise substantial questions of law.
Whether the appeal by legal heirs of the deceased tenant succeeds in setting aside the lower court decrees.
Smt Venkatamma
Sri Narayana
Sri Nagaraj
Sri Sriram
Smt Gowri
Smt Venkatamma W/o Venkatesh
Ashok S. Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
