Dismissed¶83

Sri P Chandanmal Jain v. Sri B G Venkatesh

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2026RFA/1443/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RFA No. 1443 of 2025 (NC: 2026:KHC:34571), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 08-07-2026 by Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. Keywords: ejectment suit; proof of owner-tenant relationship; rent receipt counterfoils Exs.P25 P26; khata extract certificates; registered release deed and gift deed; sub-tenancy admission in written statement; adverse possession plea treated as admission of ownership; termination of tenancy by legal notice; mesne profits issue; Section 96 CPC appeal against ejectment decree; O.S.No.6127/2020; XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru.

What did the court decide?

The plaintiff's title was proved through Exs.P2 and P3 (registered release deed and gift deed) and Exs.P4 to P7 Khatha extract certificates showing he acquired title over the property. ¶69

Sri P Chandanmal Jain Vs Sri B G Venkatesh — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶83

Issue for consideration

Point No.1: Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellant/defendant No.3 proves that he is the owner of the property and not a tenant. +2 more

¶66

Court's answer

Defendant No.3's denial that Jugraj Pukraj Jain was his father was met by the cause-title recital describing defendant No.3 as Sri. P. Chandanmal Jain S/o. Jugraj Pukraj Jain.

¶73

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff's title was proved through Exs.P2 and P3 (registered release deed and gift deed) and Exs.P4 to P7 Khatha extract certificates showing he acquired title over the property.

¶69

Key takeaways

Defendant No.3, while claiming to be owner, produced no evidence of ownership; his written statement admitted that defendant No.2 derived the right to be tenant under him, i.e., he had given sub-tenancy to defendant No.2.ratio¶74
Defendant No.3 did not produce any evidence to show that he is the owner of the property.ratio¶77
Counsel's answer during arguments that defendant No.3 holds title by adverse possession was treated as nothing but an admission that the plaintiff is the owner.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC by defendant No.3 against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2025 of the XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S.No.6127/2020, whereby the plaintiff's suit for ejectment was decreed directing the defendants to vacate and hand over vacant possession. The plaintiff traced title from Sri. B.C. Pungappa (who purchased under registered sale deed No. 3979/1964-1965 on 15.03.1965, with later relinquishment in favour of M.P. Gangappa, father of the plaintiff), proved by registered release deed and gift deed (Exs.P2 and P3) and Khatha extract certificates (Exs.P4 to P7). Rent receipt books with counterfoils (Exs.P25 and P26) proved that one Jugraj Pukraj Jain — shown in the cause title as father of defendant No.3 — was the tenant paying rent to B.C. Pungappa. Defendant No.3, who admitted in the written statement that defendant No.2 derived the right to be tenant under him, produced no evidence of ownership; his counsel's plea of title by adverse possession was treated as an admission that the plaintiff is the owner. Point Nos.1 and 3 answered in the negative and point No.2 in the affirmative; the Trial Court's decree was upheld and the appeal dismissed. Coram: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.; decided 08.07.2026.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34571 RFA No. 1443 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1443 OF 2025 (EJE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. P. CHANDANMAL JAIN S/O. JUGRAJ PUKRAJ JAIN, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, M/S MYSORE SALES CORPORATION, NO.41, OLD KESAI ROAD, (O.K.ROAD) KUMBARPET, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶9

(NOTE WRONGLY MENTIONED AS S/O JUGRAJ PUKRAJ JAIN, HE IS S/O PUKRAJ ONLY)

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. DHRUV M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. B.G.VENKATESH S/O LATE M.P. GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.9A, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 053.

¶15

SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEIRS 1(a) TO 1(d)

¶16

1(a) SMT. BALAMANI W/O. LATE SRI. B.G.VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34571 RFA No. 1443 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

1(b) SRI. B.V.VIKRAM S/O. LATE SRI. B.G.VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶20

1(c) SRI. B.V.ASHOK S/O. LATE SRI. B.G.VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶21

RESPONDENTS 1(a) TO 1(c) ARE R/AT NO.9/A, RACE COURSE ROAD MADHAVA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶22

1(d) SMT. JYOTHI SRIDHAR D/O LATE SRI. B.G.VENKATESH W/O. B.K. SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO.10/3, SHOPPING STREET KUMARA PARK WEST SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶23

M/S MYSORE SALES CORPORATION, NO.41, OLD KESAI ROAD, (O.K.ROAD) KUMBARPET, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶24

SMT. VIDYADEVI JAIN PROPRIETRIX M/S MYSORE SALES CORPORATION, NO.41, OLD KESAI ROAD, (O.K.ROAD) KUMBARPET, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K K VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO D); V/O DATED 2/4/26, NOTICE TO R2 & R3 IS D/W)

¶26

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.03.2025 PASSED IN OS.NO.6127/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY AND ETC.,

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34571 RFA No. 1443 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

The Regular First Appeal is filed by the defendant No.3 calling in question the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2025 passed in O.S.No.6127/2020 by the Court of XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, whereby the suit filed for ejectment is decreed directing the defendants to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff.

¶33

For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the rank of the parties is referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶34

It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property, owned and possessed by the plaintiff, which originally belonged to one

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34571 RFA No. 1443 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Sri. B.C.Pungappa, who has purchased the same on 15.03.1965, from his erstwhile owner by name Ramsingh S/o. late Venkoji Singh under the registered sale deed No. 3979/1964-1965. Sri. B.C.Pungappa has acquired the property on 25.09.1969 and said Sri. B.C.Pungappa had executed Relinquishment Deed in favour of his elder son by name Sri. M.P.Gangappa on 05.06.2006. The plaintiff is the son of said Sri. M.P.Gangappa and he is in possession. Therefore, pleaded that the plaintiff is owner. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Sri. Jugraj Pukraj Jain was the tenant under the said Sri. B.C.Pungappa and Sri. B.C.Pongappa was collecting rent from the said Jugraj Pukraj Jain and he was running defendant No.1 – firm. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.3 who is son of Sri. Jugraj Pukraj Jain has made defendant No.2 as proprietor of defendant No.1 by giving sub-tenant to defendant No.2. Therefore, the defendants had tenancy and hence, filed suit for ejectment.

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34571 RFA No. 1443 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed written

¶41

statement and admitted the tenancy over the suit property. The defendant No.3 has admitted that the original owner was one Sri. B.C.Pungappa. Further, it is the case of defendant No.3 that the said B.C.Pungappa had alienated the property in favour of defendant No.3 by receiving sale consideration amount and is claiming that the defendant No.3 is the owner of the property. Defendant No.3 had taken statement in the plaint that defendant No.2 had derived a right to be tenant under defendant No.3, but is claiming that defendant No.3 is the owner of the property. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have denied the relationship of owner and tenant between them. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit.

¶42

Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

¶43

1. Whether, the plaintiff proves that the defendants are tenants under him in schedule premises and their tenancy rights has been terminated in accordance with

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34571 RFA No. 1443 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

law and as such they are liable to deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises to him?

¶47

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the alleged mesne profits as claimed in the suit?

¶48

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for in this suit?

¶49

4. To what decree or order?

¶50

Additional issue:

¶51

Whether the defendant No.2 proves that, the sub-tenancy under defendant No.1 is valid or not?

¶52

The son of plaintiff is examined as PW.1 being Special Power of Attorney holder and produced document evidence and got marked the same as Exs.P1 to P34. Defendant No.3 is examined as DW.1 and he has not produced any documents.

¶53

The Trial Court in its judgment has decreed the suit of plaintiff and directed the defendants to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff.

¶54

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:34571 RFA No. 1443 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.3

¶57

has preferred the present appeal by raising various grounds and learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.3 in consonance with the grounds urged in the appeal, has submitted that defendant No.3 is the owner of the suit schedule property and plaintiff has not produced any evidence to show that there is relationship of owner and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants. Further, it is submitted that one Sri. Jugraj Pukraj Jain might have been tenant but not defendant No.3 and does not know who is Jugraj Pukraj Jain. Therefore, when there is no relationship of owner and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant, decreeing the suit is not correct. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

¶58

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has produced documents to show that he is the owner of the suit schedule premises, having taken them from the

¶59

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:34571 RFA No. 1443 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

grandfather of Sri B.C. Pungappa, and has produced khata certificates in this regard. Further, it is submitted that Exs.P25 and P26 are the rent receipt books containing counterfoils, which show that one Sri. Jugraj Pukraj Jain was paying rent to Sri.B.C.Pungappa. Defendant No.3 has not produced any evidence to show that he is the owner of the property and in that, the second defendant was the proprietor of defendant No. 1 - firm. Therefore, defendant No.3 is a tenant and has given sub-tenancy to defendants Nos.1 and 2, which is admitted in the written statement. Therefore, based on this evidence on record, the trial court is found to be correct. Hence, justified the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶62

Upon hearing the arguments by learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration:

¶63

1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellant/defendant No.3

¶64

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:34571 RFA No. 1443 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

proves that he is the owner of the property but not as tenant?

¶67

2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff proves that the defendants are tenants over the suit property and are liable for vacating the suit property and handing over the same to the plaintiff?

¶68

3. Whether, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires interference by this Court?

¶69

The plaintiff has produced evidence that he has acquired title from grandfather of Sri.B.C.Pungappa. The material produced at Exs.P2 and P3 which are registered release deed and gift deed, shows that the plaintiff has acquired title over the property. The Exs.P4 to P7 are the Khatha extract certificates, which prove the plaintiff is the owner of the property. The plaintiff has produced material to show that one Sri.Jugraj Pukraj Jain was the tenant under Sri.B.C.Pungappa and said Jugraj Pukraj Jain was paying rent. In this regard, rent receipts were produced as per Exs.P25 and P26. The plaintiff has filed suit showing

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:34571 RFA No. 1443 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

defendant No.3 is son of one Jugraj Pukraj Jain. Further, defendant No.3 has denied that Jugraj Pukraj Jain is not father of defendant No.3 but one Sri.Pukraj is father of defendant No.3. Learned counsel for appellant is unable to answer the question of the Court that who is father of Pukraj Jain. But in the cause title, defendant No.3 is shown as Sri.P.Chandanmal Jain S/o. Jugraj Pukraj Jain. Therefore, when the defendants are claiming that they are the owners of the property, but they have not produced any evidence. On the other hand, the plaintiff has produced evidence that he is the owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has issued legal notice by terminating the tenancy of the defendants.

¶74

Furthermore, defendant No.3 in the written statement, has admitted that the defendant No.2 has derived the right to be tenant under the defendant No.3. Therefore, defendant No.3 has given sub-tenancy in favour of defendant No.2. At the same time, when defendant No.3 is claiming that he is the owner of the property but

¶75

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:34571 RFA No. 1443 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

has not produced any evidence. During the course of the arguments, the answer given by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.3 that defendant No.3 is having title by way of adverse possession. When this being the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.3, which is nothing but admitting the plaintiff is owner. At the same time, defendant No.3 has not produced any evidence to show that he is the owner, whereas Exs.P25 and P26 rent receipts containing counter foils proved the fact that one Jugraj Pukraj Jain was the tenant and paying rent to B.C.Pungappa. Therefore, all these evidence on record adduced before the trial Court proves the fact that the tenancy is from Sri. B.C.Pungappa, who is the grandfather of the plaintiff. When this being the facts proved by the evidence on its preponderance of probabilities, the plaintiff is able to prove that there is relationship of tenant and owner. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in decreeing the suit. Therefore, I answer point Nos.1 & 3 in the negative and

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC:34571 RFA No. 1443 of 2025

¶79