Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1066 (KAR)

Karline, W/O Late Devaraj v. Manjula R

2025-11-10

V.SRISHANANDA

body2025
ORDER : V. Srishananda, J. 1. Heard Smt. Veena Hegde for Sri. M.G. Raghavendra, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. Defendant in S.C. No.15184/2016 is the respondent is the revision petitioner challenging the decree of ejectment passed in the said suit. 3. Operative portion of the Trial Court judgment reads as under: "Suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs. Hereby directed the defendant to quit and delivery of the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff within two months, from the date of the order. Hereby directed the defendant to pay the arrears of rent Rs.32,750/- to the plaintiff within one month and the plaintiff is also entitled to recovery of the rent of Rs.3,000/- p.m., from the defendant until delivery of the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises." 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 4.1 Plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment contending that she is the absolute owner of the following property (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') "All the piece and parcel of the property bearing r/o. Door No.279, near seventh day church, Panjappa line, Dodannanagar, Kavalbyrasandra, R.T.Nagar Post, Bangalore-560 032. Consisting two bed room, one hall one kitchen and separate toilet and bounded on : Direction Description East Ten feet passage West Plaintiff Property North Plaintiff Property South Church Property 3.2 She contended that defendant is a tenant in the scheduled property on a monthly rent of Rs.2,750/- as per the agreement dated 01.04.2012 with an advance sum of Rs.25,000/-. 3.3 It is further contented that defendants did not pay the monthly rent to the plaintiff since August 2014 and plaintiff wanted to demolish the existing structure and construct a new building and therefore, tenancy of the defendant was terminated by issuing the notice on 11.01.2016. 3.4 Though there is a proper service of notice, there was no compliance to the callings of notice nor there was any reply. Therefore suit came to be filed. 3.5 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement contending that suit is not maintainable and plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. 3.6 It is further contented that plaintiff has suppressed the actualities and filed a suit with mala fide and fraudulent intention to harass the defendant. 3.5 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement contending that suit is not maintainable and plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. 3.6 It is further contented that plaintiff has suppressed the actualities and filed a suit with mala fide and fraudulent intention to harass the defendant. 3.7 Further defendant denied that plaintiff is the owner of the property nor there was any rent agreement and there was no security deposit of Rs.25,000/- paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. 3.8 Defendant also maintained that the property earlier belonged to Sri. M. Jesurathnam, son of Moses, who purchased the Site bearing No.27/1A in part of Sy.No.27 situated at Kavalbyrasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, measuring 144 feet x 130 feet from from its earlier owner Thammanna through a registered sale deed. 3.9 It is also contented by the defendant that during the lifetime of Jesurathnam, he had sold major portion of the property and remaining portion of the property was measuring 67 feet x 7 feet which was transferred in the name of brother's daughter namely Ms. Roselyn on 06.03.1988 through Release Deed. 3.10 It is further contented that after death of Jesurathnam, Roselyn got the khata in her name in the year 2008 and she was enjoying the property as an absolute owner from the year 2008 to 2013. 3.11 Jesurathnam had given a portion of house property to the defendant by lease on rent basis from 1971 to 2013 measuring 62 feet x 30 feet in the year 2013 and said Roselyn for her financial necessities, sold the lease property to the defendant and same was purchased by the defendant through registered sale deed dated 02.07.2013 and got the revenue entries transferred onto the name and paying the taxes to the concerned authority. 3.12 Defendant further contended that Schedule property bearing No.27/1A in Sy.No.27 Door No.283 measuring 32'x30', Plaintiff resided nearby the defendant's house and it is contented that plaintiff's property may also come under the Site formed in Sy.No.27 situated at Nanjappa Line, Doddanna Nagar, Kaval Byrasandra Village and therefore there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties and sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. 5. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff stepped into the witness box and filed an affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief and placed on record 15 documents which were examined as which were Exs. P1 to Exhibit P15, among them Exhibit P1 is the registered will, Exhibit P2 is the registered Gift Deed, Exhibit P3 to P6 are the tax paid receipt to Bengaluru Mahanagara Palake, Exhibit P7 is the copy of the legal notice, Exhibit P8 and Exhibit P9 are the electricity bills, Exhibit P10 is the postal receipt and Exhibit P11 is the postal acknowledgment, Exhibit P12 is the notarized copy of the family/genealogical tree, Exhibit P13 is the death extract of Jayasuratham, Exhibit P14 and Exhibit P15 are the certified copy of the absolute sale deed. 6. As against the evidence placed on record, defendant got examined herself as DW1 and her vendor Roselyn as DW2 and Sri. Vijikar as DW3 and placed on record 21 documents which are exhibited and marked as Exhibits D1 to D21, comprising of legal notice, certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 19.07.1948 genealogical tree, sale deed, colour photograph and a compact disc, 6 receipts, certified copy of the registered shielded Electricity bills, tax paid receipt and katha extract. 7. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of both sides and by impugned judgment, decreed the suit of the plaintiff as referred to supra. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court in this revision petition on the following grounds: The impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court below is otherwise opposed to law and as such, the same are perverse, capricious and not sustainable in law. The impugned judgment & decree passed by the lower court is not the result of a proper assessment of the facts and circumstances of the plaintiff/respondent's case, the evidence let in by her and the materials on record does not corroborate each other and as such the same is liable to be set aside. The impugned judgment & decree passed by the lower court is not the result of a proper assessment of the facts and circumstances of the plaintiff/respondent's case, the evidence let in by her and the materials on record does not corroborate each other and as such the same is liable to be set aside. The lower court judge has gravely erred in pronouncing the judgment in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, even though the plaintiff has issued two legal notices to the defendant/petitioner, one is on date 11-06-2014, this notice was not produced by the plaintiff and in that notice schedule mentioned as two residential house units each measuring 407 sq. feets and 247.9 sq. feet. Both are entered oral agreement for rent was starts from 2010 and rent is fixed as Rs.1,000, same was marked by the defendant as Ex.D.1. Second notice is on 11-01-2016 and in that notice schedule mentioned as house door no. 279, measurement not mentioned, both are entered the written agreement for rent was starts from April 2012 and rent is fixed as Rs.2,750 per month & plaintiff received the advance amount of Rs. 25,000/-, same was marked as Ex. P.7. Both notices are contradicts to one and other both are belongs false story, as on this ground only impugned is liable to be set aside. The lower court judge has gravely erred in pronouncing the judgment in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, as the plaintiff/respondent has not established the liability of the petitioner by producing the relevant documents. Also trial court has committed a grave error without putting its own mind into the facts and circumstances of the case. The lower court judge has gravely erred in pronouncing the judgment in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, even though the averments in the two notices sent by the respondent and the plaint filed does not corroborate each other, as on this ground only impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The lower court judge has gravely erred in pronouncing the judgment in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, even though the suit is not maintainable, the plaintiff has filed this suit with a mollified & fraudulent intention to make wrongful gain & to harass this defendant, the trail court not observing all these grounds and conduct of the plaintiff passed the impungned judgment, on this ground only impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The lower court judge has gravely erred in pronouncing the judgment in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, even though, there is no corroboration with the evidence deposed by the PW-1 as well as in the cross examination done and the plaint filed by the plaintiff/respondent. On this ground only impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The lower court judge has gravely erred by not giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case on behalf of him and trial court passed the judgment is one sided. On this ground only impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The lower court judge has gravely erred in pronouncing the judgment in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, by accepting and acting upon the evidence of only the respondent, which is inadmissible, when the issue of the notice itself is in contrary towards title on the defendant's residing house no. 283, hence question of termination & vacating the schedule property by the defendant is not arises. On this ground only impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The lower court judge has gravely erred in pronouncing the judgment in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, by accepting and acting upon the exhibits produced & marked by the plaintiff/respondent, which is does not established his claim and is inadmissible. On the other hand trial court has not appreciated and not observed properly on documents produced & marked by the defendant/petitioner and proved and defended the suit successfully. On this ground only impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The lower court judge has gravely erred in pronouncing the judgment without giving sufficient opportunity to set right the difference between the two parties and to settle the issue or contest the matter. The trial court does not reflect the case made out by the defendant/petitioner. On this ground only impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The lower court judge has gravely erred in not giving sufficient opportunity to produce the additional documents from the defendant side and not giving sufficient opportunity to arguments and not hearing the arguments in detail from defendant/respondent side. On this ground only impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The lower court judge has gravely erred in passing the judgment and order in favour of the respondent herein by observing the only oral evidence of PW-1 & the exhibits in narrow mind. On this ground only impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The lower court judge has gravely erred in passing the judgment and order in favour of the respondent herein by observing the only oral evidence of PW-1 & the exhibits in narrow mind. The lower court not understanding the stands of the defendant/petitioner at the time of arguments heard by the court and has observed wrongly while allowing the suit. On this ground only impugned judgment is liable to be set aside The lower court judge has gravely erred in pronouncing the judgment in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, even though there is no cause of action arises between the plaintiff and the defendant to file above suit, first of all title of the defendant house is disputed, plaintiff does not have the title on the property belongs to the defendant (door no. 283). In that suit plaintiff has claiming ejectment of schedule property door no. 279 against the defendant, but defendant has never resided or let the suit schedule property from the plaintiff till today. If plaintiff wants to claim the defendant house property door no. 283, she must have to file declaration & possession suit on the defendant property, where defendant is residing. Hence that suit is filed against the wrong person, on wrong prayer and on wrong cause of action. Hence the trial court have not followed the provisions of the Transfer of property Act as on this ground only impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The petitioner submit that, in overall the trial court findings does not reflect the case made out by the petitioner herein, wherein the petitioner are entitled for the benefit of doubt as the respondent has failed to prove that she is not gave the suit schedule house no. 279 to the defendant/petitioner and there is entered any rental agreement between them in respect of schedule property. Hence the judgment of the trial court is irregular one and which is not reflect the case made out by the petitioner. On this ground only impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 279 to the defendant/petitioner and there is entered any rental agreement between them in respect of schedule property. Hence the judgment of the trial court is irregular one and which is not reflect the case made out by the petitioner. On this ground only impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The lower court judge has gravely erred in pronouncing the judgment in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, as learned trail judge has partly allow the plaintiff suit in S.C. No. 15184/2016 on the ground of non appreciating the defendant/petitioner evidence and come to concluded that defendant was residing in the house no. 279 is the suit schedule property, hence the defendant have to be vacate. On the other side the defendant/petitioner has filed the written statement and denying the whole contents of the plaint, and support of her case produced some relevant documents, which is clearly showing that defendant is residing in her own house no. 283 and not residing in the defendant suit schedule house and there is no tenancy transaction between them. The court below have wrongly addressed the correct position of law and have thus committed a error of law, which is required to be interfered with by exercising the powers under section 18 of the Small Cause Courts Act and section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in this civil revision petition and appreciating the evidence given by the plaintiff/respondent may be she was not proved the points No. 1 to 3. and passed the impugned judgment. Thus, impugned judgment and decree of the court is liable to be set aside. The lower court judge has gravely erred in passing the judgment on the ground of, the trial court has not followed the general principle is laid down in the provision of section 16 of the Small Causes Court act as jurisdiction of the court of small causes to try the suit for ejectment is made dependent on the contention raised in the written statement and at the will of the defendant and in the written statement if the defendant were to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant, denies the title or take any other plea which giuves raise to issue other than one mention in clause of Article 4, the small causes court has to return the plaint for presentation before the civil court for adjudication. On this ground only the impugned judgment and decree of the lower courts is liable to be set aside Looking from the any angle, the Judgment and decree are liable to be set aside and the suit of the Plaintiff is required to be dismissed. The Appellant craves the leave of this Hon'ble Court to urge additional grounds, if any at time of addressing the arguments on merits. The petitioner/defendant has not filed any other petition on the same subject matter hereof. 9. Smt. Veena Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner representing Sri. M.G. Raghavendra, vehemently contented that the Trial Court grossly erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff ignoring the fact that defendant is the owner of the property and when there is a dispute as to the title, the only Course that was open to the trial Court was to refer the parties to the Civil Court to establish their rights. 10. She would further contend that when there is no landlord and tenant relationship as is contended by the defendant, the learned Trial Judge grossly erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 11. She would also contend that when there is a registered seal deed executed by Roselyn in favour of the defendant, vide Exhibit D4, the learned Trial Judge ought not to have believed the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 12. Per contra, counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgment. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that property earlier belonged to one Jayasurathnam. 15. Sri. Jaykumar said to have got Schedule B property in Exhibit P1-Will. Schedule B property reads as under: 16. Whereas Schedule A property as per Will marked at Ex.P1 went into the share of his sister namely Rajamma and nephews and nieces of his younger brother namely Grace Vanitha, Grace Shanti, Rajkumar M. Jacqueline and Thavamani Rosaline equally. 17. Schedule A Property reads as under: 18. However, as per the Exhibit P2-Gift Deed, Sri. Whereas Schedule A property as per Will marked at Ex.P1 went into the share of his sister namely Rajamma and nephews and nieces of his younger brother namely Grace Vanitha, Grace Shanti, Rajkumar M. Jacqueline and Thavamani Rosaline equally. 17. Schedule A Property reads as under: 18. However, as per the Exhibit P2-Gift Deed, Sri. Jayakumar was beneficiary under Exhibit P1 in respect of the Schedule B property, got the property entire property sold to his name and he became the owner who in turn executed the Gift in favour of R. Manjula that is the wife of Sri. Jaykumar. 19. Original gift deed is placed on record so also the original Will. 20. As against the documents that is placed on record, by the plaintiff to claim title, defendant also placed a copy of the sale deed vide Exhibit D4. 21. In the Exhibit D16-sale deed, it has been mentioned that Smt. Roselyn has sold the property to the defendant to the extent of East to West : 32 feet and North to South : 30 feet. 22. The title that is traced by Rosaline who is the vendor of the defendant as per Exhibit D16 is she is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property and therefore she is the owner of the property. She has also stated that she got the Release Deed from Jesurathnam who is her uncle. 23. Admittedly, the property was the self acquired property of Jesurathnam having purchased from his vendor. Therefore, vendor of the defendant being not a sharer could not have got the suit property as aforementioned vide Exhibit D16 by virtue of a Release Deed. 24. Therefore, the very title to the vendor of the defendant itself did not flow from the Release Deed marked at Exhibit D16. 25. When there was no title that has flown from Jesurathnam to vendor of the defendant Rosaline, she could not have sold the property in favour of the defendant. Thus, The title of the defendant cannot be pitted against the Gift Deed vide Exhibit P2. 26. Moreover as per the will, Schedule A property was to be divided equally among six children, one among them is Roselyn. Therefore, defendant claiming that Roselyn was the owner of the property to the extent of 32 feet x 30 feet as per Exhibit D16 cannot be countenanced in law. 27. 26. Moreover as per the will, Schedule A property was to be divided equally among six children, one among them is Roselyn. Therefore, defendant claiming that Roselyn was the owner of the property to the extent of 32 feet x 30 feet as per Exhibit D16 cannot be countenanced in law. 27. Plaintiff has specifically stated that she became the owner of the suit property by virtue of Exhibit P2. 28. Further, she has been paying taxes to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and tax paid receipts are placed on record, so also electricity bills are placed on record. 29. Moreover there is no reply to the legal notice issued by the plaintiff terminating the tenancy of the defendant. 30. These factors when viewed cumulatively, it is crystal clear that the scope of the enquiry before the trial Court in a suit for ejectment has been properly carried out by the learned Trial Judge. Therefore, defence taken by the defendant that the Trial Judge ought not to have decreed the suit and referred the matter to the Civil Court as there is a cloud on the title of the plaintiff cannot be countenanced in law. 31. Hence, decreeing of the suit by the Trial Court by the impugned judgment cannot be faulted with, that too in the revisional Jurisdiction. 32. However, if the defendant has got any better title, she can always establish before the Civil Court by filing necessary proceedings and re-enter the property if she is declared as the owner of the suit property by filing necessary applications seeking restitution. 33. With that liberty, following order: ORDER Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.