Ramachandra Hegde Vs Ganesh Pai — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ramachandra Hegde Vs Ganesh Pai — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff proves that he was in possession of the suit schedule ('A' schedule) property as on the date of filing of the suit. +2 more

Court's answer

The plaintiff was a tenant of the 'A' schedule premises, his father having taken the premises on lease under Ex.P.21 dated 26.05.1970, with the tenancy further evidenced by Exs.P.21 and P.22 and rent receipts Exs.P.11 to P.19.

Ratio / Principle

As on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property.

Key takeaways

The defendant's specific contention that the entire suit premises was demolished for widening of the road is contradicted by the Commissioner's report, and the Trial Court rightly answered issue No.4 in the negative.ratio¶57
Having noticed the plaintiff's dispossession after filing of the suit, the Trial Court rightly directed the defendant to hand over possession of the 'A' schedule (shop) premises to the plaintiff.ratio¶57
No error was committed by either the Trial Court or the Appellate Court, and no perversity is found in their findings, which are based on the material available on record.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal under S.100 CPC against concurrent findings: the Trial Court (O.S.No.182/2014, Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Karkala; decree dated 13.02.2020) and the Appellate Court (R.A.No.19/2020, Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Karkala; judgment dated 22.02.2024) had held the plaintiff (here respondent) a tenant of the 'A' schedule shop premises under lease document Ex.P.21 dated 26.05.1970, read with Exs.P.22 and rent receipts Exs.P.11-P.19, and in possession on the date of the suit; the defence that the entire premises was demolished for road widening was rebutted by the Commissioner's report, and the Trial Court, noting dispossession during the pendency of the suit (the defendant held the key and opened the shop door during the Commissioner's visit), directed delivery of vacant possession within two months. The High Court (H.P. Sandesh, J.) found no error or perversity in the concurrent findings, held Exs.D.1-D.2 insufficient to disprove possession, declined to admit the appeal or frame any substantial question of law, and dismissed the second appeal.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:27493 RSA No. 939 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.939 OF 2024 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

RAMACHANDRA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O NARASIMHA HEGADE, R/AT MARKET ROAD, KARKALA KASABA VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574104.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. VARUN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

GANESH PAI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATESHA PAI, R/AT 155, WARD II TOWN MUNICIPALITY, KARKALA, KASABA VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISRICT-574104.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K.CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.02.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.19/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:27493 RSA No. 939 of 2024

HC-KAR

13.02.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.182/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KARKALA.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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 appellant and the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent.

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent

finding.

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff

before the Trial Court is that he is in possession of ‘A’ schedule property as a tenant as on the date of filing of the suit. It is also contended that the defendant is interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also making an attempt to dispossess him and hence, sought for permanent injunction. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that ‘A’ schedule shop bearing municipality door No.155 comes within Ward No.2 of Karkala and the same is got demolished by the revenue officials at the time of road widening and the shop is

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:27493 RSA No. 939 of 2024

HC-KAR

no more existing and also took the contention that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

The Trial Court framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 25. On the other hand, the defendant also examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 and 2. The Commissioner was also appointed and examined as C.W.1 and got marked Exs.C.1 to 3. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, particularly taking note of lease document of the year 1970 and also Exs.P.21 and 22 recent lease deed dated 01.12.2012 apart from the rent receipts Exs.P.11 to 19, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff being a tenant is in occupation of ‘A’ schedule property. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence of D.W.1 and he only got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 and 2 i.e., CC of the extract of 101 register and also the RTC. The Trial Court also taken note that P.W.1 has established that lease deed dated 26.05.1970 and 01.12.2012 evidence the fact that he is

in possession and also taken note of the rent receipts Exs.P.11 to P19 and answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:27493 RSA No. 939 of 2024

HC-KAR

affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit and subsequently his possession is disturbed and detailed discussion was made regarding interference by the defendant. The Trial Court while answering issue Nos.3 comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant as on the date of the suit and the defendant caused interference to the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The Trial Court also taken note that the Commissioner’s report discloses that during visit of suit shop room by the Commissioner, the defendant opened the door of shop room and the learned counsel for the defendant while arguing the matter also submitted that the key of the suit shop is with the defendant, so, it would manifest from the argument of the learned counsel for the defendant as well as the Commissioner report that, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has been dispossessed by the defendant from the suit shop room and hence directed the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the ‘A’ schedule property within a period of two months.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:27493 RSA No. 939 of 2024

HC-KAR

The said order is challenged before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.19/2020. The Appellate Court having reconsidered the material on record and considering the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the point whether the plaintiff proves that he was in possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and also with regard to interference. Having considered the material and re-assessing the material on record, the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was in possession of the property and answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, particularly taking note of the document of Ex.P.21 and also the recitals of the document of Ex.P.23 and comes to the conclusion that the recitals of Ex.P.21 goes to show that the father of the plaintiff by name Venkatesh Pai has agreed to avail the building for rent leaving the back portion of property to be exclusively reserved for keeping Guruji items of Sri Venkataramana Temple. The Appellate Court also taken note of the evidence of D.W.1 in paragraph No.21 and D.W.1 admits that the property was transferred to Sri Venkataramana Temple from Sri Venkataramana Temple Viniyoga Bhandara. Though denies that the plaintiff’s father

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:27493 RSA No. 939 of 2024

HC-KAR

was doing business of vegetable vending in the suit premises, admits that the plaintiff’s father was running business in the property, but submits that it was in the government property. D.W.1 further admits that 7 feet land has been encroached for the purpose of widening of the road. However, the Commissioner’s report clearly discloses that not entire portion of the shop was taken for expanding the road and considering the Commissioner’s report, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

Being aggrieved by the findings of both the Trial

Court as well as the Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that both the Courts are not justified in granting the relief and directing the appellant to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property in the absence of prayer for possession. The learned counsel also contend that the suit itself is not maintainable for the relief of bare injunction. The learned counsel contend that the Courts below committed an error in misconstruing the document of Ex.P.23 by holding that the suit property has been sold to Sri

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:27493 RSA No. 939 of 2024

HC-KAR

Venkataramana Temple, wherein only movable property present in the suit schedule property has been sold to the Temple and hence this Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law.

The learned counsel for the caveator/respondent would contend that the Trial Court has not committed any error in granting the relief. The Trial Court, particularly taking into note the lease deeds of the year 1970 as well as 2012, which are marked as Exs.P.21 and 22 and also the rent receipts Exs.P.11 to 19, granted the relief of permanent injunction. The learned counsel contend that the defendant got locked the premises and the same was noticed by the Trial Court that he was keeping the lock with him when the Commissioner visited the spot and he came and opened the door and hence ordered to deliver the possession of ‘A’ schedule room to the plaintiff. The Appellate Court also reappreciated the same and not committed any error.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent and particularly taking note of the pleadings, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that he was a tenant under the temple and also

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:27493 RSA No. 939 of 2024

HC-KAR

contend that he was in possession as on the date of filing of the suit. Though the defendant took the specific contention that the entire suit premises area was demolished for widening of the road, the Commissioner’s report is against the said contention and hence the Trial Court rightly answered issue No.4 in the negative and comes to the conclusion that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was in possession and he was disturbed during the pendency of the suit. The material also clearly discloses that the plaintiff was a tenant in terms of Exs.P.21 and 22 and also the rent receipts Exs.P.11 to 19 and the father of the plaintiff took the premises long back in terms of lease document Ex.P.21 dated 26.05.1970. When such material is established before the Court, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court not committed any error and based on the material available on record only, granted the relief of permanent injunction and having noticed the dispossession after filing of the suit, rightly directed the defendant to hand over the possession of ‘A’ schedule premises i.e., shop premises to the plaintiff. When such materials are considered, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts and also not found any perversity in such finding and the same is based on the material available on

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:27493 RSA No. 939 of 2024

HC-KAR

record. Though the defendant relies upon the documents of Exs.D.1 and 2, the same will not come to the aid of the defendant to establish that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property. Both the Courts have taken note of factual aspects as well as question of law and hence no ground is made out to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The second appeal is dismissed.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51