Mrs HUDA Abdul Aleem Vs Spaceline Projects Pvt. Ltd.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:18055 RFA No. 775 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 427 of 2025 RFA No. 776 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 775 OF 2025 (RES) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 427 OF 2025 REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 776 OF 2025

¶8

IN RFA No. 775/2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MRS. HUDA ABDUL ALEEM W/O. SHAKIR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.36, 'D' CASTA SQUARE, COOK TOWN, BENGALURU - 560084 REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER MR. SYED RIZWAN

¶11

&APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. SYED AKMAL HASAN RAZVI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

SPACELINE PROJECTS PVT. LTD. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BABA TOWERS, NO.1, JASMA BHAVAN AND QUEENS ROAD JUNCTION, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. CHARLES DEAN M.

¶16

MR. SHAIK HIDAYATHULLA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:18055 RFA No. 775 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 427 of 2025 RFA No. 776 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

W/O. SHAIK ABDULLA R/AT NO.D12, DUTCHROSE APARTMENT BLOCK, MAVALLI WARD NO.61, LALBAGH SIDDAPURA BENGALURU - 560011.

¶21

&RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BRIJESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; VIDE ORDER DATED 11.09.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96, READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.11.2024 AND 02.12.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.7362/2017 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND SUCH OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS.

¶23

IN RFA NO. 427/2025

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

MRS. HUDA ABDUL ALEEM W/O. SHAKIR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.36, D'CASTA SQUARE, COOK TOWN, BENGALURU - 560084 REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER MR. SYED RIZWAN

¶26

...APPELLANT

¶27

(BY SRI. SYED AKMAL HASAN RAZVI, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

SPACELINE PROJECTS PVT. LTD. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BABA TOWERS, NO.1,

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:18055 RFA No. 775 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 427 of 2025 RFA No. 776 of 2025

¶31

3 -

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

JASMA BHAVAN AND QUEENS ROAD JUNCTION, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU. REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. CHARLES DEAN M.

¶34

MRS. MALINI C AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, W/O LATE PURUSHOTAM, R/AT NO.D21, DUTCHROSE APARTMENT BLOCK, MAVALLI, WARD NO.61, LALBAGH SIDDAPURA BENGALURU.

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. BRIJESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶37

VIDE ORDER DATED 11.09.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶38

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.11.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.7361/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT AND SUCH OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS.

¶39

IN RFA NO. 776/2025

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

MRS. HUDA ABDUL ALEEM W/O. SHAKIR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.36, D'CASTA SQUARE, COOK TOWN, BENGALURU - 560084 REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER MR. SYED RIZWAN

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18055 RFA No. 775 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 427 of 2025 RFA No. 776 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

...APPELLANT

¶45

(BY SRI. SYED AKMAL HASAN RAZVI, ADVOCATE)

¶46

AND:

¶47

SPACELINE PROJECTS PVT. LTD. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BABA TOWERS, NO.1, JASMA BHAVAN AND QUEENS ROAD JUNCTION, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU. REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. CHARLES DEAN M.

¶48

MR. PANKAJ KUMAR KASAUDHAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O ASHOK KUMAR LATE PURUSHOTAM, R/AT NO.D12, DUTCHROSE APARTMENT BLOCK, MAVALLI WARD NO.61, LALBAGH SIDDAPURA, BENGALURU-560011

¶49

...RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI. BRIJESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶51

VIDE ORDER DATED 11.09.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶52

THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.12.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.7345/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

¶53

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

¶54

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18055 RFA No. 775 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 427 of 2025 RFA No. 776 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶57

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶58

I.A No.2/2025, is filed by the appellant in these appeals seeking permission to file the appeals against the judgment dated 19.11.2024 and decree dated 02.12.2024 passed in O.S.No.7362/2017 and judgment and decree dated 07.11.2024 passed in O.S.NO.7361/2017 and the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2024 passed in O.S. No.7345/2017 by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶59

The appellant contends that he is the owner of the property bearing site No.191/3, PID No.61-59-191-3, Lalbagh, Siddapura, Jayanagar 1^st Block, Mavalli BBMP Ward No.61, Bengaluru. He had entered into an agreement with Holiac Reality Private Limited for developing the aforesaid property, in terms of which, he was entitled to three apartments, while Holiac Reality Private Limited was entitled to three apartments.

¶60

(i) The appellant claims that apartment bearing Nos.D12, D21 and D22 (henceforth referred as "apartments in question") fell to his share. He contends that respondent No.1 who has no right, title or interest in the aforesaid apartments,

¶61

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18055 RFA No. 775 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 427 of 2025 RFA No. 776 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

fraudulently entered into separate lease agreement with the respondent No.2 in these cases and rented out apartment bearing Nos.D12, D21 and D22.

¶64

(ii) He further contends that when he visited the apartments in question, he found respondent No.2 in these cases in occupation thereof. Upon questioning their authority to be in possession, he informed them that he is the owner of the apartments in question. However, respondent No.2 in these cases, claimed that respondent No.1 - Spaceline Project Private Limited is the owner of the property and had executed a lease agreements in their favour. It is further contended that the appellant thereafter warned respondent No.2 in these cases of criminal action, pursuant to which, it was mutually agreed that they would enter into lease agreements with the appellant and continue as tenants in the respective apartments.

¶65

(iii) The appellant contends that in the meanwhile respondent No.1 had filed a suit for ejectment of respondent No.2. He submits that an application filed by him to be impleaded in the said suit was initially allowed, but was subsequently set aside by this Court on the ground that he

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:18055 RFA No. 775 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 427 of 2025 RFA No. 776 of 2025

¶67

7 -

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

cannot compel respondent No.1 to implead him as a party to the suit.

¶70

(iv) He contends that respondent No.1 claimed to be the landlord and asserted that the property was leased to respondent No.2 and that since respondent No.2 had failed to pay rent, the tenancy was terminated on 09.10.2017 with effect from 25.10.2017. He contends that despite material on record indicating that respondent No.1 was not the owner of the property in question, the Trial Court decreed the suit.

¶71

(v) He contends that respondent No.1 had admitted that the appellant was liable to pay some money to Holiac Reality Private Limited and since the appellant did not pay the money back to Holiac Reality Private Limited, the apartments in question was made over to the respondent No.1. He therefore contends that he is entitled to come on record and challenge the impugned judgment and decree.

¶72

The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that even according to the appellant, it is respondent No.1 who had leased out the apartments to respondent No.2 and therefore there is no privity of contract between the appellant

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:18055 RFA No. 775 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 427 of 2025 RFA No. 776 of 2025

¶74

8 -

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

and respondent No.2. He contends that respondent No.1 was justified in filing the suit for ejectment of respondent No.2 from the apartments in question. He further submits that any agreement between the appellant and respondent No.2 intended to defeat the claim of respondent No.1 is unconscionable and cannot be looked into. He therefore submits that the appellant is not entitled to question the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

¶77

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶78

As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant has admitted in the application seeking permission to file the appeal that the property in question was leased by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2.

¶79

It is not the case of the appellant that respondent

¶80

No.2 was inducted into the premises by him and that he is the landlord and respondent No.2 is his tenant. If the appellant claims better right over the property in question, he is entitled to seek adjudication of such right in appropriate proceedings

¶81

NC: 2026:KHC:18055 RFA No. 775 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 427 of 2025 RFA No. 776 of 2025

¶82

9 -

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

before the Executing Court and not by filing the present application seeking leave to challenge the impugned judgment and decree.

¶85

In that view of the matter, I.A.No.2/2025 filed in all these appeals is rejected. Consequently, the appeals stand disposed of. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to work out his remedy in the execution proceedings. If any application is filed, the Executing Court having regard to the contours of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, shall examine the case of the appellant in accordance with law.

¶86

Any observations made in this order shall not

¶87

influence the Executing Court while deciding any application that may be filed by the appellant on merits.

¶88

In view of disposal of main appeals, pending interlocutory applications if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.

¶89

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶90

HJ

¶91

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Mrs HUDA Abdul Aleem v. Spaceline Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs HUDA Abdul Aleem v. Spaceline Projects Pvt. Ltd.

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

Parshwanath Enterprise Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Manjunath a Vs State of Karnataka

Munishamanna Vs State by

M/S Hoyasala Selections Vs M/S Associate Inc. (India)

Sri. R. Murugan Vs Smt. Vasanthalakshmi

Jolly Stephen Vs Mr. Thomas Kuruvilla