Smt Munivenkatamma Vs Sri Gangadhara — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt Munivenkatamma Vs Sri Gangadhara — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal disposed of without admission and without framing any substantive question of law; the First Appellate Court's judgment and decree in R.A.No.15010/2023 (reversing the trial court and decreeing the counter claim for possession) stands; appellants granted three months from the date of the order to vacate the premises, conditional on filing an undertaking affidavit within one week, failing which the benefit of the three-month period will not enure to them.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Regular Second Appeal should be admitted under Section 100 CPC and a substantive question of law framed, given the appellants' contention that the First Appellate Court erred in decreeing the counter claim and directing handing over of possession, and the respondent's contention that the findings of the courts below were concurrent and not divergent.

Court's answer

The Trial Court, though answering Issue No.6 as affirmative, failed to take note that a counter claim seeking possession had been made and separate court fee had also been paid for the counter claim; its course of directing that possession be pursued by a separate suit arose from this misconception and was erroneous.

Ratio / Principle

As between the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court there is no divergent finding; the finding is a concurrent one.

Key takeaways

The Trial Court's course of granting the plaintiffs protection (permanent injunction) and directing that the appropriate relief of possession be sought in a separate suit was erroneous.ratio¶¶52
In view of the concurrent (non-divergent) findings and the Trial Court's misconception, the Court found no ground to admit the second appeal and frame a substantive question of law; the appeal was therefore not admitted.ratio¶¶52
Though the appellants sought six months to vacate, the Court, noting that the respondent had already filed an execution petition, granted three months time from the date of the order and directed the appellants to file an undertaking affidavit that they would vacate the premises within three months and not seek any further time.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (H.P. Sandesh, J., oral judgment dated 25.11.2025): Regular Second Appeal No. 290 of 2025 (DEC/INJ) under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2024 of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, sitting at Devanahalli, in R.A.No.15010/2023, whereby the First Appellate Court allowed the defendant-respondent's appeal, set aside and reversed the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022 of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, in O.S.No.84/2011, decreed the defendant's counter claim and directed delivery of possession within three months. The Trial Court had answered Issue No.6 (possession sought through the defendant's counter claim) as affirmative yet granted the plaintiffs permanent injunction protecting their possession until the defendant recovered possession through lawful procedure, effectively directing recourse to a separate suit. Before the High Court, the appellants contended the First Appellate Court erred in decreeing the counter claim, accepting a disputed document and ignoring material evidence favouring the appellants; the respondent maintained the counter claim carried its own court fee and possession ought to have been granted in the very suit. The Court held there was no divergent finding between the courts below - only a concurrent finding marred by the Trial Court's misconception in overlooking the counter claim and the court fee paid on it - and that the Trial Court's direction to seek possession in a separate suit was erroneous. Finding no ground to admit the appeal or frame a substantive question of law, the Court disposed of the second appeal, granting the appellants three months (against six sought) to vacate, noting an execution petition had already been filed, conditional on an undertaking affidavit to be filed within one week, failing which the benefit of the extended period lapses. No precedents were cited or relied upon in this admission-stage decision.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:48875 RSA No. 290 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.290 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA W/O LATE DRIVER MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS

SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O LATE DRIVER MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

SRI. M. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE DRIVER MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

PADMAVATHI W/O M. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

KUSHAL S/O M. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

KARTHIK

S/O M. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS

APPELLANT NO.6 IS A MINOR

REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN HIS FATHER NAMELY M.SHIVAKUMAR.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48875 RSA No. 290 of 2025

HC-KAR

SMT. PADMAVATHI D/O LATE DRIVER MUNIYAPPA W/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE DRIVER MUNIYAPPA W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT OLD HOUSE NO.2359/2139, NEW MUNICIPAL NO.57/2635/2465, WARD NO.1, KORAMARA BEEDHI, DEVANAHALLI TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE 562110.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. S.N.ASHWATHNARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHANDRAPPA V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. GANGADHARA S/O LATE KANIVE KARIBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT WARD NO.1 KORAMARA BEEDI TALUK OFFICE ROAD DEVANAHALLI TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE: 562110.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K. CHETHAN KUMAR A/W

SRI. N. BALAJI, SRI. PRASANNACHARI K.B., AND SRI. PRASHANTH K.H., ADVOCATES FOR C/R)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.15010/2023 ON THE FILE OF V

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48875 RSA No. 290 of 2025

HC-KAR

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, SITTING AT DEVANAHALLI., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE AND REVERSE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.84/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the respondent. Though there is a divergent finding with regard to the possession is concerned that the Trial Court even though answered the Issue No.6 as affirmative, while granting the relief of permanent injunction held that plaintiffs are entitled for protection of their possession over the suit schedule property by way of permanent injunction till the defendant obtains the recovery of possession of the suit schedule property by following procedure established under the law. The said judgment was challenged by the respondent before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.15010/2023. The First Appellate

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48875 RSA No. 290 of 2025

HC-KAR

Court having taken note of the reasoning given in respect of point No.6 is concerned that when the relief of possession is sought for by virtue of counter claim by the defendant, made an observation that Trial Court has committed an error and the same is not sustainable and ought to have granted the relief of possession in the very suit itself and hence, allowed the appeal by setting aside the said judgment and the suit in its entirety and counter claim is decreed and directed to hand over the possession within three months.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, present second appeal is filed. The counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that First Appellate Court committed an error in granting the relief of counter claim and directing the appellants to hand over the possession and Courts below are not justified in considering the disputed document and accepting the case of the respondent and not considering the material evidence supporting the case of the appellants.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48875 RSA No. 290 of 2025

HC-KAR

The counsel appearing for the respondent would

vehemently contend that there is no any divergent finding. Since, the Trial Court answered Issue No.6 as affirmative in favour of the respondent, but committed an error in approaching the Court by filing a separate suit by payment of Court fee and the said payment of Court fee also paid in the counter claim and relief of possession is also sought in the counter claim and in the very same suit, ought to have been granted but, on misconception, directed to approach the Court by filing a separate suit and same has been set up right by the First Appellate Court and hence, question of admitting the second appeal and framing substantive question of law does not arise.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the counsel appearing for the respondent and also the considering the material available on record and also particularly reasoning given by the Trial Court in respect of Issue No.6 is concerned, though answered the same as affirmative, but fails to take note of the fact that

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48875 RSA No. 290 of 2025

HC-KAR

a counter claim was made and also separate Court fee is also paid to the counter claim and rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the respondent that by misconception without looking into the counter claim, an erroneous order has been passed and First Appellate Court

also considering the point No.6, rightly held that Trial Court already comes to a conclusion that respondent is entitled for possession since already sought for the relief of possession by way of counter claim and Court fee is also paid and the same amounts to an illegality. When such finding is given and the same is not divergent and the same is also a concurrent finding and only an error has kept in by the Trial Court giving the protection and directing to seek the appropriate relief in a separate suit and the same is erroneous. When there is no divergent finding and only misconception as rightly contended by the counsel appearing for the respondent. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48875 RSA No. 290 of 2025

HC-KAR

At this juncture the learned counsel for the

appellants seeks six months time to vacate the premises. The counsel appearing for the respondent submits that already execution petition is filed. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration, it is appropriate to grant three months time from today. The appellants are directed to file an undertaking affidavit that going to vacate the premises within three months from today and not to seek any further time in the matter. If undertaking affidavit is

not filed within one week from today, the appellants will not enure the benefit of this order of granting three months. Accordingly, the second appeal is disposed of.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40