Dismissed¶119

Mrs Leena Issac v. Mrs S Mounica

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2026RFA/1274/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, RFA No. 1274 of 2025 (NC: 2026:KHC:26469), decided 04-06-2026, Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J. Ejectment decree under Section 96 CPC upheld; specific performance not maintainable in an eviction appeal, liberty to file separate suit; oral agreement of sale; rental agreement dated 07.08.2020 expired; landlord-tenant relationship admitted; Rs.25 lakh repair/renovation claim unproved; damages Rs.20,000 p.m.; arrears Rs.5,04,000 with 9% interest; defendants granted liberty to sue.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; the trial Court's judgment and decree of ejectment upheld. Defendants granted liberty to file separate suits for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale and for recovery of the alleged repair and renovation expenditure. ¶119

Mrs Leena Issac Vs Mrs S Mounica — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶119

Issue for consideration

Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff proves that she is entitled to get vacant possession of the suit schedule property from the defendants? +1 more

¶94

Court's answer

The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants as owner and tenants stands proved by the rental agreement dated 07.08.2020 (Exhibits P1 to P3) and is admitted by the defendants; when the period mentioned in the rental agreement expired, the plaintiff became legally entitled to recover possession of the suit schedule property.

¶112

Ratio / Principle

A relief of specific performance of the alleged oral agreement of sale cannot be granted in an appeal directed against a judgment and decree passed for eviction; the defendants are granted liberty to seek specific performance by filing a separate suit before the competent Civil Court.

¶104

Key takeaways

The claim that defendant No.1 spent an additional Rs.25,00,000/- towards repair and renovation of the suit schedule property is unsupported by any documentary evidence such as bills or receipts; if the defendants are entitled to recover such amount, they are at liberty to file a separate suit before the competent Civil Court.ratio¶108
The findings of the trial Court are not perverse or illegal; the trial Court's judgment and decree are justifiable and legal, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶112

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC by defendant No.1 against judgment and decree dated 11.04.2025 in O.S.No.518/2023 (VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) decreeing ejectment with Rs.5,04,000/- arrears at 9% p.a. interest, Rs.30,000/- maintenance dues, Rs.4,000/- electricity charges and Rs.20,000/- p.m. damages. Held: (i) landlord-tenant relationship proved by rental agreement dated 07.08.2020 (Exhibits P1 to P3) and admitted; on expiry of the rental period the plaintiff-owner was legally entitled to recover possession; (ii) specific performance of an alleged oral agreement of sale (Rs.44,00,000/- consideration, Rs.13,00,000/- advance) cannot be granted in an ejectment appeal; defendants granted liberty to file a separate suit; (iii) claim of Rs.25,00,000/- towards repair and renovation unproved for want of bills or receipts; liberty to sue separately. Trial Court findings held not perverse or illegal. Appeal dismissed; both points for consideration recorded as answered in the negative.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1274 OF 2025 (RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS LEENA ISSAC

¶9

D/O LATE C.FSSAC AGED ABOUT- 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NANDI ENCLAVE, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, NEAR MAITRI ENGLISH MEDICAL SCHOOL, A. NARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 016.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. K VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JANARDHANA V, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MRS S MOUNICA

¶14

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

W/O MANISH SRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT: ‘SAI ANNEXURE’, FLAT NO.P1, 16^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, PAI LAYOUT, BENGALURU D- 560 016. (REP. BY HER PA HOLDER AND MOTHER MRS. SIVUNI NEERAJA, W/O LATE S.S. REDDY, MAJOR)

¶16

MR.THYAGARAJAN RAMANATHAN FATHER NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT:

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NANDI ENCLAVE, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, NEAR MAITRI ENGLISH MEDICAL SCHOOL, A. NARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 016.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. ASHOK HANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶22

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11-04-2025 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH.11) IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.518/2023 AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with

¶27

consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶28

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant No.1 calling in question the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2025 passed in O.S.No.518/2023 by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Bengaluru¹ , thereby, the suit filed for ejectment is decreed directing the defendants to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within a period of 60 days from the date of judgment. Also, directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.5,04,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of suit till realization to the plaintiff. Also, directed that the plaintiff is permitted to adjust the arrears of rent from the sale consideration advance amount paid by the defendants and granted other reliefs.

¶32

For the sake of convenience and easy

¶33

reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶34

The plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property having acquired the same through a registered gift deed dated 02.07.2014 executed by her mother (GPA holder); therefore, the plaintiff is the owner. The defendants have approached the plaintiff for purchase of

¶35

1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.44,00,000/- and the defendants paid an advance of Rs.13,00,000/- towards sale of the suit schedule property. The defendants have not arranged balance sale consideration amount in time to complete the sale consideration with the plaintiff and there is no written agreement between the parties.

¶39

Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants requested the plaintiff to rent out schedule property for Rs.18,000/- p.m. and sought few months’ time to conclude the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property; therefore, the plaintiff agreed to give the suit schedule property on rent for short duration on monthly rent of Rs.18,000/- p.m. The defendants paid Rs.1,00,000/as an advance security deposit on 05.08.2020. On 07.08.2020, a rental agreement was executed for a period of three months. Even after more than 2 years, the defendants have not concluded the sale

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

transaction by paying the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.31,00,000/-.

¶44

Further, it is the case of plaintiff that the defendants have not paid monthly rent for the past 29 months amounting to Rs.5,04,000/- in spite of request made by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for ejectment.

¶45

Defendant No.1 appeared through counsel and filed a written statement and admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. The defendants also admitted that they had approached the plaintiff for purchase of suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.44,00,000/- and that they had paid Rs.13,00,000/as advance sale consideration and the plaintiff received the same. The defendants requested the plaintiff to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to make repair of the same and the plaintiff agreed to hand over the vacant possession for repair and security

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

purposes. For the said security purpose, the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a rental agreement dated 07.08.2020 for a period of three months.

¶49

Further submitted that on 01.03.2021, defendant No.1 has paid Rs.9,00,000/- to the plaintiff through account transfer. The plaintiff denied the execution of the sale deed. Further submitted that the defendants invested a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the repair of the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶50

On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court

¶51

has framed the following issues:

¶52

ISSUES

¶53

1) “Whether the Plaintiff proves that the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.18,000/-?

¶54

2) Whether the Plaintiff proves that the arrears of rent due from the defendant to the plaintiff as on 15-01-2023 was Rs.5,04,000/-?

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

3) Whether the Plaintiff proves that the plaintiff has terminated tenancy by issuing a notice dated 28-10-2020 against the defendant?

¶59

4) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant had agreed to pay sale consideration amount of Rs.44,00,000/- and to purchase the suit property from the plaintiff and that the defendant has paid advance sale consideration amount of Rs.13,00,000/- to the plaintiff?

¶60

5) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the agreed sale consideration amount is Rs.30,00,000/- and that the defendant has paid advance sale consideration amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the plaintiff?

¶61

6) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the rental agreement dated 07-08-2020 is a nominal one and that it was executed by the defendant No.1 and 2 as security deed?

¶62

7) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the defendants have taken the suit property for the purpose of repairs on 07-08-2020 and that they have invested Rs.5,00,000/- for repairs of the suit property and that at the end of 3 months and after finishing the repairs work the defendants have handed over the vacant possession of the suit property with key to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had changed the

¶63

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

lock of the door of the suit property in the presence of the defendants?

¶67

8) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the defendants have paid rent to the plaintiff and also paid electrical and maintenance charges to the plaintiff as per the rental agreement?

¶68

9) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants is not that of land lord ad tenants in respect of the suit property but it is one of seller and purchaser?

¶69

10)Whether the defendant No.1 proves that without seeking for cancellation of oral agreement, the suit for the relief claimed in the plaint is not maintainable?

¶70

11)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits and if so at what rate?

¶71

12)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?

¶72

13)What Decree or Order?”

¶73

In order to prove the case, the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff is examined as PW-1 and got marked documentary evidence as Exs.P-1 to P-29. The defendants have not produced any evidence either oral or documentary.

¶74

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Upon appreciating the evidence on record, the

¶77

trial Court has decreed the suit and directed defendant Nos.1 and 2 to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff by an order of ejectment. Further directed the defendants to pay Rs.5,04,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of suit till realization to the plaintiff and permission was given to the plaintiff to adjust the arrears of rent from the sale consideration amount towards the advance amount paid by the defendants. Also, directed to pay Rs.30,000/towards maintenance due and Rs.4,000/towards electricity charges. Further, directed to pay Rs.20,000/p.m. as damages from the date of the suit till they vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs.

¶78

Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1/appellant preferred this appeal by raising various grounds.

¶79

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

The learned counsel for defendant No.1/ appellant submitted that defendant No. 1 had entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.44,00,000/-, and had paid Rs. 13,00,000/- as an advance amount. Further, it is submitted that the defendant No.1 had carried out repairs and renovated the suit schedule property by spending an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. The defendant No.1 was ready to pay excess amount of Rs.16,00,000/over and above Rs.44,00,000/- as it was earlier agreed. Thereafter, it is submitted that, if at this stage, the defendant No.1 is directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property, then the defendant No.1 would be put into much hardship, discomfort, and inconvenience.

¶82

It is further submitted that, as of now, defendant No.1 has agreed to pay total sale consideration of Rs.44,00,000/- which includes excess amount of Rs.16,00,000/towards the original agreed sale

¶83

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

consideration amount. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

¶86

On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 submitted that the plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property and denied the existence of any such agreement of sale. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is not willing to sell the property as the same is required for the use of family members of the plaintiff.

¶87

It is further submitted that the defendant No.1 has not paid rent amount from the year 2020 and therefore, the arrears of rent amount have been adjusted against the advance amount of Rs.13,00,000/- previously paid by the defendant No.1. Therefore, it is submitted that when the plaintiff is the owner of the property and now the suit is filed for ejectment and the period of rent agreement is over, the defendant No.1 is liable to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property.

¶88

12 -

¶89

NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

It is further submitted that the agreement of

¶92

sale and the sale consideration paid are not at all binding on the plaintiff. Furthermore, the argument regarding the execution of the said agreement is being raised for the first time in this appeal. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, and the learned counsel prays for the dismissal of the appeal.

¶93

Upon hearing both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following points arise for my consideration:

¶94

i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff proves that she is entitled to get vacant possession of suit schedule property from the defendants?

¶95

ii. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court require interference by this Court?

¶96

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

Admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit

¶99

schedule property. This fact was not disputed by the defendants. It is the case of both the parties that the defendants approached the plaintiff to purchase the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.44,00,000/-. The defendants paid Rs.13,00,000/- as an advance towards sale of the suit schedule property, which is also not disputed by the plaintiff. However, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have not paid rent amount at all from the year 2020. Therefore, the said advance amount of Rs.13,00,000/- was adjusted towards arrears of rent.

¶100

The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that there was an oral agreement of sale and that an advance amount of Rs.13,00,000/- had been paid. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for a direction to the plaintiff to execute the registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration as well as excess amount over and above the originally agreed sum. The defendants

¶101

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

agreed to pay excess amount of Rs.16,00,000/-, but these averments are not found in the plaint. Therefore, in a suit filed for eviction, the defendant No.1 in the appeal is claiming a relief of specific performance which cannot be granted.

¶104

If the defendants deserve to purchase a property, then the remedy for the defendants is not in this appeal, but, by approaching the competent Civil Court by filing another suit. When the present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed for eviction, the relief for specific performance cannot be granted. Accordingly, the defendants are granted liberty to seek specific performance by filling a separate suit before the competent Court.

¶105

Further, it is the submission made by the counsel for the defendant No.1 that the defendant No.1 has carried out repair work and renovated the suit schedule property by spending an amount of

¶106

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

Rs.25,00,000/-. However, there is no documentary evidence on record to substantiate this claim made by the defendants. Though, the plaintiff admitted that she had received an advance sale consideration of Rs.13,00,000/but, there is no evidence on record to prove that defendant No.1 had spent an additional amount of Rs.25,00,000/- towards the repair work and renovation of the suit schedule property. If defendant No.1 had incurred an expenditure of Rs.25,00,000/- towards repair and renovation work, then some documents like bills, receipts etc. would certainly have been produced, however, no such documents have been filed by the defendant No.1. If the defendants are entitled to recover the amount incurred for repair and renovation of suit schedule property, then the defendants are at liberty to file a separate suit before the competent Civil Court.

¶109

Upon considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the present suit is one for eviction, simpliciter. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner of the property and

¶110

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

the defendants have entered into a agreement of rent for Rs.18,000/- per month. The plaintiff has produced the rental agreement dated 07.08.2020 and other documents produced at Exhibits P1 to P3 proves the fact that the plaintiff is the owner of the property. Therefore, the relationship between the owner and defendants as owner and tenants are proved and this fact is also admitted by the defendants. When the period mentioned in the rental agreement has expired, the plaintiff is legally entitled to recover the possession of the suit schedule property. The trial Court has rightly appreciated this fact by granting decree of eviction. Consequently, the findings given by the trial Court are not perverse and illegal and the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No.1 is liable to be dismissed.

¶113

Insofar as the claim of the defendants regarding the repair and renovation work carried out on the suit schedule property is concerned, the defendants are granted liberty to file a separate suit before the competent Civil Court. Similarly, with respect to the claim for specific

¶114

17 - NC: 2026:KHC:26469 RFA No. 1274 of 2025

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

performance, the defendants are granted liberty to file a suit by taking recourse in accordance with law. With these observations, the liberty is granted to the defendants.

¶117

Upon considering the scope of the suit and the

¶118

appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are found to be justifiable and legal and hence, there is no reason so as to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(i)

¶119

Negative and point No.(ii) in the Negative . Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶120

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .

¶121

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶122

SRA: Para 1 to 11 UN : Para 12 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Mrs Leena Issac v. Mrs S Mounica

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Leena Issac v. Mrs S Mounica

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. John Iman Vellu J Vs Smt. Hemalalatha K M

Sri. B. a. Bhakthavatsala Vs Smt. R. Bhuvaneshwari

Sri Hanumanthaiah Vs Sri G Govindaraju

Smt D Sheela Pillai Vs Sri Syed Shabbir

K L Vidyashankar Vs Janapriya Heights Flat Owners Association

Sri Junjapap K S Vs K S Munihanumaiah