I.S. Saraswathi v. Smt. Basamma

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2026RFA/623/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RFA No. 623 of 2011, High Court of Karnataka (08.01.2026, Sachin Shankar Magadum J): landlord-tenant jural relationship; arrears of rent Rs.52,500 (01.07.2003-31.08.2004) at Rs.3,750/month; quit notice termination of tenancy; BDA possession certificate and sale deed Exs.P.1, P.2; alleged impersonation of Basamma; pendency of O.S. No.494/2006 (T.K. Poonacha declaratory suit) no bar to rent suit; Ex.P.26 rent payment; no perversity in Trial Court findings; Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 CPC; money decree upheld; regular first appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The pendency of O.S. No.494/2006 has no bearing on the maintainability or adjudication of the present suit, which is confined to recovery of arrears of rent and consequential reliefs. ¶¶81

I.S. Saraswathi Vs Smt. Basamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶102

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's finding that the plaintiff established the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and lawful termination of tenancy suffers from perversity and calls for interference. +1 more

¶¶57

Court's answer

The pendency of O.S. No.494/2006 has no bearing on the maintainability or adjudication of the present suit, which is confined to recovery of arrears of rent and consequential reliefs.

¶¶81

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the limited scope of enquiry in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, discrepancies pointed out with regard to the identity of the plaintiff do not assume determinative significance.

¶¶86

Key takeaways

Whether the sale deed at Ex.P.2 was obtained fraudulently or by impersonation cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings; it is a matter to be independently decided in appropriate proceedings, with title documents examined only to ascertain possession, induction of tenant, and arrears.ratio¶¶87
No prayer in O.S. No.494/2006 seeks cancellation or declaration of invalidity of the BDA sale deed in favour of the plaintiff (Ex.P.2); coupled with the Court's finding that the BDA is not impleaded as defendant therein, the contention that Ex.P.2 is directly under challenge in that suit is factually incorrect and devoid of merit.ratio¶¶74

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Sachin Shankar Magadum J., oral judgment dated 08.01.2026) dismissed RFA No.623 of 2011 filed by the defendant against the money decree in O.S.191/2005 (XII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, dated 18.12.2010) awarding arrears of rent of Rs.52,500/- for 01.07.2003 to 31.08.2004 at Rs.3,750/- per month. Held: (i) the pendency of the declaratory suit O.S. No.494/2006, instituted by T.K. Poonacha tracing title through the defendant as GPA holder, has no bearing on the maintainability or adjudication of the rent-recovery suit; (ii) that suit contains no prayer for cancellation or declaration of invalidity of the BDA sale deed (Ex.P.2) and the BDA is not impleaded as defendant therein, so the contention that Ex.P.2 is under challenge in it is factually incorrect; (iii) discrepancies as to the plaintiff's identity do not assume determinative significance in a suit for arrears of rent, and the question whether Ex.P.2 was obtained fraudulently or by impersonation must be independently decided in appropriate proceedings; (iv) Ex.P.26 fortifies the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, and the Trial Court rightly disbelieved the defendant's plea of having funded the construction. Points i and ii answered in the negative; appeal dismissed and decree upheld.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1136 RFA No. 623 of 2011

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 623 OF 2011 (RES-) BETWEEN:

¶8

I.S. SARASWATHI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O MOTIRAM SINGH, DAUGHTER OF I.K. SUBBAIAH, RESIDING AT NO. 2113, 14^TH MAIN, 9^TH CROSS, KODIHALLI, HAL III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 008

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. BASAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, WIFE OF MAHESH, RESIDING AT NO.171, SHANTHINAGAR, M.S.K. MILLS ROAD, KHB COLONY, GULBARGA.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. H. KANTHARAJA, ADVOCATE AND SRI. SUBHASH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, R/W O-41, RULE-1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.12.2010 PASSED IN O.S.191/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR THE RECOVERY OF MONEY.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:1136 RFA No. 623 of 2011

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

The captioned appeal is filed by the defendant

¶24

assailing the money decree passed in O.S.No.191/2005.

¶25

For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties

¶26

are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

¶27

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶28

The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a direction to

¶29

the defendant to pay arrears of rent amounting to `52,500/- for the period from 01.07.2003 to 31.08.2004

¶30

and for mesne profits/damages at the rate of `6,000/- per month. The plaintiff asserted that she is the absolute owner of the house property bearing No.2113, consisting of the ground floor, first floor, second floor, third floor and a room on the fourth floor, situated at 14th Main, 9th Cross, Kodihalli, HAL III Stage, Bengaluru–8. It was contended that the defendant is a tenant in respect of the

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1136 RFA No. 623 of 2011

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

third floor and a room on the fourth floor of the scheduled premises on a monthly rent of 3,750/-. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant is a chronic defaulter and has failed to pay rent from July 2003 onwards. Despite repeated demands, the defendant allegedly failed to clear the arrears, constraining the plaintiff to issue a quit notice dated 28.06.2004 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises and pay arrears of rent of 48,750/- along with mesne profits at `6,000/- per month. As there was no response, the present suit came to be filed seeking recovery of arrears of rent and consequential reliefs.

¶34

Upon service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement stoutly denying the plaint averments. In paragraph No.10 of the written statement, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff had sold the suit property to the defendant under an agreement of sale dated 21.09.1996 and had also executed a General Power of Attorney in her favour. It was

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1136 RFA No. 623 of 2011

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

contended that the defendant, having acquired a saleable interest, had in turn conveyed the property in favour of one Ganapathy under a sale deed dated 05.05.2005. On this premise, the defendant contended that the suit for recovery of rent was not maintainable in the absence of a declaratory relief.

¶38

Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues and relegated the parties to lead evidence.

¶39

In support of her case, the plaintiff produced the original possession certificate issued by the BDA, marked as Ex.P.1, and the sale deed executed by the BDA in her favour, marked as Ex.P.2. She also relied upon tax-paid receipts, demand notices issued by the BBMP, khatha certificates, and the quit notice dated 26.08.2004 marked as Ex.P.12, besides other supporting documents.

¶40

The defendant, in rebuttal, relied upon nineteen

¶41

documents, which were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.19.

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1136 RFA No. 623 of 2011

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit by answering Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and Issue No.3 partly in the affirmative. While answering Issue Nos.1 and 2, the

¶45

Trial Court held that the plaintiff had successfully established the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and lawful termination of tenancy. On Issue No.3, the Trial Court held that the defendant was in arrears of rent to the extent of 52,500/- for the period from 01.07.2003 to 31.08.2004 at the rate of 3,750/- per month.

¶46

Aggrieved by the decree passed by the Court of

¶47

First Instance, the defendant has preferred the present appeal.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for the defendant, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, vehemently contended that the plaintiff is not the true owner of the suit property and has fraudulently secured the possession certificate and sale deed from the BDA by impersonating the real Basamma, daughter of one

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1136 RFA No. 623 of 2011

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Channappa, who is stated to be the brother of husband of the defendant. Placing reliance on the rebuttal evidence, it was contended that the defendant, as GPA holder of the original owner, had executed a sale deed in favour of one T.K. Poonacha, who has instituted a comprehensive suit for declaration, pending adjudication in O.S. No.494/2006. It was further contended that the plaintiff has been charge-sheeted for impersonation and that criminal proceedings are pending against her. According to the learned counsel, the Trial Court, without considering these crucial aspects and without properly appreciating the rebuttal evidence, erroneously decreed the suit. It was argued that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a jural relationship and that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are perverse, unsustainable, and warrant interference.

¶52

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶53

and upon perusal of the records, the following points arise for consideration:

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:1136 RFA No. 623 of 2011

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

i. Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff has established the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and lawful termination of tenancy suffers from perversity and calls for interference?

¶58

ii. Whether the finding of the Trial Court holding that the defendant is in arrears of rent of Rs.52,500/- is perverse and warrants interference by this Court?

¶59

Findings on point Nos.i and ii:

¶60

Though the learned counsel appearing for the defendant, placing strong reliance on the rebuttal evidence, has vehemently contended that the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff is vitiated by impersonation and that the said issue is now the subject matter of adjudication in O.S.No.494/2006, instituted by the purchaser through the present defendant, this Court considers it appropriate to advert to the nature of the relief sought in the said suit. The relief claimed in O.S.No.494/2006, as extracted from the pleadings, reads as under:

¶61

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:1136 RFA No. 623 of 2011

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

"a) Declare that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit schedule 'A' property and consequently restrain defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with the plaintiff's rights over the suit schedule 'A' property as its lawful owner in any manner.

¶65

b) Issue mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2 to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule 'B' and 'C' properties to the plaintiff and consequently direct the defendants 5 and 6 to enter the name of the plaintiff in katha records of the fifth defendant.

¶66

c) Direct the defendants 1 and 2 to pay Rs.25,000/to the plaintiff as damages for illegal occupation of the suit schedule 'B' and 'C' properties and pay future damages under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code till the date of delivery of possession of the suit schedule 'B' and 'C' properties to the plaintiff.

¶67

d) Direct the defendants to pay the costs of these proceedings

¶68

e) grant such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice."

¶69

A careful reading of the extracted prayer in O.S. No.494/2006 makes it manifest that the said Poonacha, who traces his claim of title through the present defendant assertedly as a purchaser under a sale deed executed by her in the capacity of General Power of Attorney holder of

¶70

the alleged true owner Basamma has not sought to

¶71

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:1136 RFA No. 623 of 2011

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

challenge the sale deed executed by the BDA in favour of the present plaintiff, which is marked at Ex.P.2. The relief sought in O.S. No.494/2006 is confined to a declaration of title based on the sale deed executed by the present defendant as a GPA holder of Basamma. There is conspicuously no prayer seeking cancellation or declaration of invalidity of the sale deed executed by the BDA in favour of the present plaintiff.

¶75

This Court has also closely examined the cause title of the suit instituted in O.S. No.494/2006. Though learned counsel for the defendant sought to contend that the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) is arrayed as a party to the said suit and that the sale deed executed by the BDA in favour of the present plaintiff is the subject matter therein, a perusal of the cause title and array of parties unmistakably reveals that the BDA is not impleaded as a defendant in O.S. No.494/2006. Consequently, the assertion that the sale deed marked at

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:1136 RFA No. 623 of 2011

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

Ex.P.2 is directly under challenge in the said suit is

¶80

factually incorrect and devoid of merit.

¶81

The principal contention of the defendant in the present appeal is that the adjudication of the suit for recovery of arrears of rent ought to have been deferred in view of the pendency of the comprehensive declaratory suit in O.S. No.494/2006. This Court is unable to accede to such a contention. The pendency of O.S. No.494/2006 has no bearing on the maintainability or adjudication of the present suit, which is confined to recovery of arrears of rent and consequential reliefs. In the present suit, the plaintiff has produced the original possession certificate and sale deed issued by the BDA, marked at Exs.P.1 and P.2, which prima facie establish her possession and entitlement to induct a tenant. The plaintiff has also proved issuance of a quit notice terminating the tenancy in accordance with law.

¶82

On an examination of Exs.P.1 and P.2, it is true that certain discrepancies have been pointed out by the

¶83

11 -

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:1136 RFA No. 623 of 2011

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

defendant with regard to the identity of the plaintiff. However, having regard to the limited scope of enquiry in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, such discrepancies do not assume determinative significance. The question as

¶87

to whether the sale deed at Ex.P.2 was obtained fraudulently or by impersonation cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings and is a matter to be independently decided in appropriate proceedings. In the present suit, the title documents are required to be examined only for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether the plaintiff was in possession, whether the defendant was inducted as a tenant, and whether there are arrears of rent.

¶88

The rebuttal evidence adduced by the defendant,

¶89

including her oral testimony, discloses that she had no independent source of substantial income and was earning

¶90

her livelihood by working as a domestic help in three houses, earning approximately `3,500/- per month. Though an alternate plea was taken that she had invested

¶91

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:1136 RFA No. 623 of 2011

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

her own funds in construction of the house, the Trial Court has, on sound appreciation of evidence, rightly disbelieved the said version. The documentary evidence, particularly Ex.P.26, clearly indicates payment of rent by the defendant in respect of the suit schedule premises, thereby fortifying the existence of a jural relationship of landlord and tenant.

¶94

The fact that the plaintiff in O.S. No.494/2006 is seeking possession from one Kalegowda, to whom the present plaintiff is alleged to have conveyed the property under a registered sale deed, further demonstrates that possession has since changed hands and that the disputes regarding title arising in O.S. No.494/2006 are required to be adjudicated independently. Such disputes cannot operate as an impediment in deciding the present appeal, which arises out of a decree for recovery of arrears of rent.

¶95

On an overall reappreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court finds no

¶96

13 -

¶97

NC: 2026:KHC:1136 RFA No. 623 of 2011

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. The plaintiff has successfully established the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and has also proved that the defendant was in arrears of rent as claimed. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the negative.

¶100