Dismissed¶95

M S Palakshappa v. S S Jyothi Prakash

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2025RSA/514/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: attornment of tenancy; tenant estoppel; derivative title of subsequent purchaser; Section 116 Evidence Act post-expiry objection rejected; 'tenant is always a tenant'; identity/boundary dispute an afterthought; Section 100 CPC substantial question of law refused at admission; ejectment suit Shivamogga; Ex.P1 rent agreement 12.11.1985; Ex.P4 attornment letter; Ex.P6–P13 eviction notices; Tunga Rice and Oil Industries Limited; Bismillah Be (Dead) by Lrs v. Majeed Shah (2017) 2 SCC 274 applied; dismissal with cost Rs.50,000; Karnataka High Court RSA No.514 of 2025 (POS); NC: 2025:KHC:46199.

What did the court decide?

Once the appellant admits tenancy at the hands of the original owner — the rent agreement Ex.P1 dated 12.11.1985 being undisputed — he cannot dispute the very title of the subsequent purchaser (plaintiff). ¶70

M S Palakshappa Vs S S Jyothi Prakash — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶95

Issue for consideration

Whether there was attornment of tenancy to the plaintiff as subsequent purchaser, and whether the defendant/appellant can dispute the plaintiff's title notwithstanding his admitted tenancy under the original owner. +3 more

¶60

Court's answer

¶70

Ratio / Principle

The defendant gave no reply to the attornment letter (Ex.P4) sent by M/s Tunga Rice and Oil Industries Limited immediately after the sale, nor to the notices Ex.P6–P13 issued by the subsequent purchaser, and categorically admitted receiving the notice to continue paying rent and to quit the premises; this conduct evidences continued tenancy under the purchaser.

¶75

Key takeaways

On the plea that Section 116 of the Evidence Act does not apply after expiry of the lease: the Court held the appellant remained a tenant squatting on the property without paying rent to either the erstwhile owner or the subsequent purchaser, that 'the tenant is always a tenant', and that he therefore cannot dispute the title of the plaintiff.ratio¶87
The defence that the identity/boundaries of the property are in dispute is an afterthought, the written statement not having disputed the identity of the property and having pleaded only that the earlier owner promised to sell it to the defendant.ratio¶87
Finding no error in the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court (concurrent findings upheld), the Court found no ground to admit the second appeal and frame a substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal (RSA No.514 of 2025 (POS), High Court of Karnataka, H.P.Sandesh J., 12.11.2025) dismissed at the admission stage with cost of Rs.50,000/-. Upholding the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the Court held that a tenant who does not dispute the rent agreement (Ex.P1 dated 12.11.1985) executed by the original owner cannot dispute the title of the subsequent purchaser; that the tenant gave no reply to the attornment letter (Ex.P4) or to the purchaser's notices (Ex.P6–P13) while categorically admitting receipt of the notice to pay rent and quit, establishing continued tenancy; that the plea that Section 116 of the Evidence Act applies only during continuance of tenancy does not avail a tenant squatting without payment of rent ('the tenant is always a tenant'); and that the boundary/identity dispute was an afterthought. Applying Bismillah Be (Dead) by Lrs v. Majeed Shah, (2017) 2 SCC 274 (para 24 caveat on attornment), no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC; pending I.As stood dismissed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:46199 RSA No. 514 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.514 OF 2025 (POS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M S PALAKSHAPPA S/O M. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS PRABHATH INDUSTRIES SAVARLINE ROAD SHIVAMOGGA – 577201

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. VAIDYA RAVI LAXMINARAYANA.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

Digitally signed S S JYOTHI PRAKASH by DEVIKA M S/O SAJJINARASHIVANNA Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS COURT OF R/O JEEVANASUDHE KARNATAKA 1^ST CROSS, MISSION COMPOUND SHIVAMOGGA – 577201

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.12.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.34/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT SHIVAMOGGA AND ETC.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:46199 RSA No. 514 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent

¶24

finding of both the Courts.

¶25

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶26

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff

¶27

before the Trial Court that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed dated 02.09.2008 and the same was executed by its earlier owner i.e., M/s Tunga Rice and Oil Industries Limited and put the plaintiff in constructive possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant has occupied the schedule premises as a tenant through lease deed dated 12.11.1985 under the vendor of the plaintiff. It is further contended that the vendor of the plaintiff informed

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46199 RSA No. 514 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

the defendant regarding the sale transaction held between plaintiff and his earlier owner. Further, the defendant did not pay the rent to the erstwhile owner M/s Tunga Rice and Oil Industries Limited and also to the plaintiff from September 2008. The lease of the defendant commenced from 24.09.1985 and the same had expired on 28.05.1990. Even though the defendant was continued in the suit schedule premise without any bilateral contract. The plaintiff requires the said property for comprehensive improvement of the entire property including the suit schedule property by taking up construction based on a comprehensive plan or to entrust the land to a developer with a view to develop and to market the built area. The plaintiff further contended that he has been requesting the defendant since September 2008 to vacate the schedule premises. Initially the defendant promised to vacate the schedule premises on the plea that all garages are in the process of shifting to auto complex and the defendant is also in the process of shifting the premises and there is no

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:46199 RSA No. 514 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

difficulty for the defendant to vacate the schedule premises. The plaintiff believed the version put forward by the defendant since it was a fact that based on the policy of the District Administration, all garages in garden area were shifted to auto complex. As of now, it appears that in total defiance of the directives of even the District Administration of defendant has not been vacating the premises, despite having acquired alternative accommodation at auto complex. The plaintiff further contended that he has issued a legal notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant and the same was delivered on 18.08.2011 and thereafter, another notice was also issued to the defendant on 28.01.2012 but the defendant refused the said notice and continued in the suit schedule premises as a illegal possession. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant has not paid the rent from 01.09.2008 and as such he is in arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.14,490/- for a period of 42 months commencing from 01.09.2008 to 29.02.2011 on which date the tenancy

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46199 RSA No. 514 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

would stand terminated. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of ejectment of the defendant to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property along with the damages at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶38

The defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that he is a tenant of the Tunga Rice and Oil Industries since 1974 and at that time, the entire premises was about to acquired by the government. So the management of Tunga Rice and Oil Industries decided to rent out the premises by forming sites to get control over the entire premises and to avoid the acquisition proceedings by the government. At that time, the entire premises is not in a position to make use of the same and this entire site was got leveled by filling up the mud to make it as a levelled site converted the same to form sites. The landlord of the defendant have orally assured that they will give sites to the tenants and the tenants will be given first preference in case if the management

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46199 RSA No. 514 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

decided to sell the sites which were already occupied by the tenants. On the basis of the promise made by the landlord, this defendant has put up construction and invested lakhs of rupees to carry on the business under the name and style “Prabath Industries.”

¶42

It is further contended that the defendant

¶43

continued his tenancy after 1974. As per the promise to the tenants, the landlord sold two sites i.e., one to a sawmill owner and another site which is adjacent to the said site. Thereafter, this defendant approached the Secretary of the management and put forth the desire of purchasing the schedule premises and after without the knowledge of the defendant, the alleged sale was made in favour of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint by the management and it is only after notice issued by the management to the defendant, the defendant came to know that the management has executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, at the outset it clearly establishes that it is a collusive act between the plaintiff

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:46199 RSA No. 514 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

and the landlord of the defendant. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.

¶48

The Trial Court considering the pleadings of the

¶49

parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the defendant has occupied the suit schedule property as a tenant even after the expiry of the lease period and the defendant is in arrears of rent from 01.09.2008 to 29.02.2011 and the plaintiff by issuing legal notice, terminated the tenancy of the defendant and the defendant failed to prove that there was no attornment of tenancy between him and M/s. Tunga Oil and Rice Industries Limited and the defendant failed prove that the plaintiff to pay ad-voleram Court fee as per the value of the suit schedule property as mentioned in the registered sale deed dated 02.09.2008 for a sum of Rs.34,13,000/-

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:46199 RSA No. 514 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

and the plaintiff has paid the sufficient Court fee and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

¶54

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial

¶55

Court, an appeal was preferred by the defendant. The First Appellate Court considering the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, formulated the points and having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that there is a attornment of tenancy and notice was issued immediately after the property was sold by the original owner in favour of the plaintiff and defendant did not reply to the notice and there was an agreement of rent between the original owner and the defendant and notice was issued before filing of eviction suit. inspite of service of notice, The defendant did not give reply and there is clear admission on the part of defendant that he has not given any reply to the notice. Hence, the First Appellate Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:46199 RSA No. 514 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶60

The main contention of the counsel for the

¶61

appellant that there is no attornment of tenancy. The counsel would vehemently contend that the boundaries which are mentioned in the sale deed as well as the suit not tallies with regard to the property which is in occupation of the defendant/appellant. The counsel also would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the sale deed which is the basis for claiming the jural relationship is not pertaining to the suit schedule property. Under such circumstances, both the Courts ought not to have granted the relief. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court committed an error in applying Section 116 of the Evidence Act to the case where the plaintiff based his claim on derivative title and when the suit is

¶62

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:46199 RSA No. 514 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

filed after determination of the lease period in view of the settled principle of law that Section 116 of the Evidence Act applies only during the continuation of the tenancy. Hence, prayed this Court to admit the appeal and to frame substantial question of law.

¶65

The learned counsel for the respondent brought to notice of this Court that the Trial Court in detail discussed the evidence available on record particularly the answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 and held that where there is clear admission on the part of defendant with regard to the issuance of notice for having purchased the property and also with regard to eviction notice, the same are not replied and even when the attornment of tenancy notice was issued by the original owner in terms of Ex.P4, the same was also not replied and he continued in the premises even though the property was sold long back in favour of the plaintiff without payment of rent either to the earlier owner or to the present plaintiff. Hence, the Court has to take note of the conduct of the

¶66

11 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:46199 RSA No. 514 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

appellant. The respondent counsel also admits that the plea only took forth before the Trial Court that the earlier owner has promised that property will be sold to him and not disputed the very boundaries mentioned in the sale deed and also the tenancy but, now an ingenious method adopted before this Court sating that boundaries is not tallies. Once he admits that earlier owner i.e., vendor the plaintiff had agreed to sell the property, now he cannot dispute the very identity of the property. Hence, prays this Court to dismiss the second appeal.

¶70

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also considering the material on record particularly taking note of the document of Ex.P1 rent agreement dated 12.11.1985, it discloses that the same was between the original owner as well as the appellant/defendant. The appellant not disputes this rental agreement. Hence, once he admits that he was a tenant at the hands of the original owner, he cannot dispute the very title of subsequent purchaser i.e., the

¶71

12 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:46199 RSA No. 514 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

plaintiff. The only defence taken in the written statement that earlier owner promised him to sell the property but he has not sold the same to him. Hence, the grievance is only against the original owner as he has not sold the property as agreed. But, now, he cannot contend that he is not a tenant under the present plaintiff.

¶75

It is also important to note that in terms of Ex.P4, letter was sent by M/s Tunga Rice and Oil Industries Limited immediately after the property was sold in favour of the present plaintiff but no reply was given. Apart from that when this respondent also given notice in terms of Ex.P6 to P13, no reply was given to the said notices also. But categorical admission was given by the defendant that he has received the notice of continue to pay the rent as well as to quit the premises. But no reply was given and he did not respond even to the earlier owner or to the present respondent and the defendant as a tenant is squatting on the suit schedule property without payment of rent even after the expiry of the period of five

¶76

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:46199 RSA No. 514 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

years as contended by the appellant. Thus, this Court has to take note of the conduct of the defendant. Being a tenant, he continued in the premises without payment of rent to erstwhile owner to the subsequent owner i.e., respondent herein. The Apex Court held that a tenant is always a tenant.

¶79

However, the counsel relies upon the judgment of Apex Court reported in (2017) 2 SCC 274 in the case of BISMILLAH BE (DEAD) BY LRS vs MAJEED SHAH and brought to notice of this Court paragraph 24 wherein an observation is made that though by virtue of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, the tenant is estopped from challenging the title of his landlord during continuance of the tenancy, yet the tenant/lessee is entitled to challenge the derivative title of an assignee/vendee of the original landlord of the demised property in an action brought to by the assignee/vendee against the tenant for his eviction from the demised property under the rent laws. This right of a tenant is, however, subject to one caveat that the

¶80

14 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:46199 RSA No. 514 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

tenant/lessee has not attorned to the assignee/vendee. In other words, if the tenant/lessee pays rent to the assignee/vendee of the tenanted property then it results in creation of an attornment between the parties which, in turn, deprives the tenant/lessee to challenge the derivative title of an assignee/vendee in the proceedings.

¶84

In the case on hand, when the property was sold by the very erstwhile owner in favour of respondent/plaintiff, immediately, he had communicated the same to the defendant to continue to pay the rent in favour of the subsequent purchaser and Ex.P4 also served on him but no reply was given. Subsequent purchaser also issued notice to him but no response to the said notice also. The admission on the part of DW1 is very clear that he did not respond to the notice issued by the earlier owner and by the subsequent purchaser and only contention is taken that identity of the property is in dispute. But in the written statement he has not disputed the identity of the property and only contention is taken

¶85

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:46199 RSA No. 514 of 2025

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

that earlier owner promised him to sell the property but did not sell to him. When such pleading is made in the written statement, only an after thought, the defence is taken that the identity of the property is in dispute. Having taken note of the fact that property was sold in the year 2008 in favour of plaintiff and the defendant also promised to vacate the premises earlier as pleaded in the plaint but he did not vacate the premises and without any other alternative, the plaintiff approached the Court in the year 2012. Now, We are in 2025 and the defendant squatting on the property without paying of rent even to the original owner or to the subsequent purchaser. The appellant taking advantage of the sale made in favour of the respondent, not paying the rent and squatting on the property without paying the rent, as such, the appellant forgotten his status as tenant and the tenant is always a tenant and he cannot dispute the title of the plaintiff. Thus, I do not find any error in the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Hence, I do not

¶88

16 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:46199 RSA No. 514 of 2025

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

find ground to admit and frame substantive question of

¶92

law invoking Section 100 of CPC.

¶93

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶94

ORDER

¶95

The second appeal is dismissed with cost of

¶96

Rs.50,000/-.

¶97

The cost to be paid to the registry within a period of two weeks. If cost is not paid within two weeks, list the matter before the Court on 27.11.2025..

¶98

In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration

¶99

and the same stands dismissed.

¶100

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶101

M S Palakshappa v. S S Jyothi Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Palakshappa v. S S Jyothi Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrappa Vs Smt. Gowramma

Sri Manu @ Manjunath Vs Kum Damini

Sri.Mahadevanayaka Vs Smt.Laxmi@ Lakshmamma

Smt P v Meenakshi Vs Smt Mastamma

Zubair Anwar, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. G. N. Nagarajaiah Vs Sri. Bheemaiah