Mr. William D Souza Vs Srimath Annatheshwara Devaru — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Mr. William D Souza Vs Srimath Annatheshwara Devaru — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the judgment and decree in O.S.No.178/2004 (Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Belthangady) and in R.A.No.4/2014 (Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Belthangady) stand confirmed.

Issue for consideration

Whether, under the Kararu Patra/rent bond Ex.P3 dated 02.12.1981, the plaintiff was bound to pay the value of the land/structures before the defendant need vacate (i.e., compensation for improvements), and whether the tenancy was validly terminated by notice. +2 more

Court's answer

The Courts below rightly held that the defendant's construction constitutes improvements made by him and the plaintiff is not liable to pay compensation for the same in the absence of any stipulation in the rent bond.

Ratio / Principle

The defendant entered possession under the rent bond dated 02.12.1981 whose execution is admitted; the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and the tenancy was validly terminated by issuance of notice.

Key takeaways

The defendant's plea that the suit property is Mulgeni (tenanted) land attracting the Act stands concurrently rejected by both Courts below — no material established the tenancy and the alleged Mulgeni Kararu Patra dated 24.10.2000 was not proved.ratio¶53
The First Appellate Court, as the last fact-finding Court, concurred with the Trial Court; the findings recorded are purely findings of fact based on evidence and suffer from no perversity or illegality warranting interference in the appeal.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal by the defendant (through LRs) against concurrent decrees for possession and mesne profits in favour of the plaintiff-temple. Held: (i) execution of the rent bond Ex.P3 dated 02.12.1981 was admitted; the relationship of landlord and tenant existed and the tenancy was validly terminated by notice dated 12.04.2004; (ii) constructions raised by the defendant were improvements and, absent any stipulation in the rent bond, the plaintiff is not liable to compensate for them — the recital in Ex.P3 covered only the pre-existing old building, which had collapsed; (iii) the plea that the property was Mulgeni (tenanted) land attracting the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974 was concurrently rejected — no material proved the tenancy and the alleged Mulgeni Kararu Patra dated 24.10.2000 (produced only as xerox) was not proved; (iv) the concurrent findings are purely findings of fact, without perversity or illegality, and no substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC. Appeal dismissed; judgments and decree of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court confirmed.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 23.03.2018 in R.A.No.4/2014 (First Appellate Court) dismissing the defendant's appeal and confirming the Trial Court's judgment and decree dated 21.12.2013 in O.S.No.178/2004 decreeing possession and mesne profits to the plaintiff-temple.¶28
Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Belthangady · 23.03.2018
Prior proceeding
Defendant took the suit schedule property (Sy.No.154/2D(1P), Karimanelu Village, Belthangady Taluk) on lease under a rent bond dated 02.12.1981 agreeing to pay rent of Rs. 2/- per month.¶33
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff issued termination notice dated 12.04.2004 calling upon the defendant to vacate; despite service, the defendant failed to vacate.¶33
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff instituted O.S.No.178/2004 seeking possession and mesne profits; the Trial Court decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 21.12.2013.¶33
Prior proceeding
Defendant's written statement: property was Mulgeni (tenanted) land, plaintiff only a Mulidar; by virtue of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974 the property had vested in the Government; defendant claimed to have invested about Rs. 10,00,000/- in constructing a house and sought compensation for improvements.¶37
Prior proceeding
Trial Court held execution of the rent bond dated 02.12.1981 admitted, establishing landlord-tenant relationship; tenancy validly terminated; defendant failed to prove Mulgeni tenancy, pending Land Tribunal proceedings, or improvements; suit decreed for possession and mesne profits.¶38
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence, held Ex.P3 to be a rent bond (not a Mulgani document), the property non-agricultural so the Act was not attracted, and the alleged Mulgeni Kararu dated 24.10.2000 unproved (xerox copy only); dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Trial Court's decree.¶42
Prior proceeding
Cause title of the RSA amended as per Court order dated 10.09.2024 to bring the proposed LRs of the deceased sole appellant on record.¶14