Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 116 (KAR)

I. S. Saraswathi v. Basamma

2026-01-08

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

body2026
JUDGMENT : SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J. The captioned appeal is filed by the defendant assailing the money decree passed in O.S.No.191/2005. 2. For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a direction to the defendant to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 52,500/- for the period from 01.07.2003 to 31.08.2004 and for mesne profits/damages at the rate of Rs. 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 third floor and a room on the fourth floor of the scheduled premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 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 Rs. 48,750/- along with mesne profits at Rs. 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. 4. 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 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. 5. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues and relegated the parties to lead evidence. 6. On this premise, the defendant contended that the suit for recovery of rent was not maintainable in the absence of a declaratory relief. 5. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues and relegated the parties to lead evidence. 6. 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. 7. The defendant, in rebuttal, relied upon nineteen documents, which were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.19. 8. 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 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 Rs. 52,500/- for the period from 01.07.2003 to 31.08.2004 at the rate of Rs. 3,750/- per month. 9. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the Court of First Instance, the defendant has preferred the present appeal. 10. 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 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 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. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, the following points arise for consideration: 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? 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? 12. Findings on point Nos.i and ii: 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: "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. 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. 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. 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. d) Direct the defendants to pay the costs of these proceedings 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." 13. 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 the alleged true owner Basamma has not sought to 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. 14. 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 Ex.P.2 is directly under challenge in the said suit is factually incorrect and devoid of merit. 15. 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. 15. 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. 16. On an examination of Exs.P.1 and P.2, it is true that certain discrepancies have been pointed out by the 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 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. 17. The rebuttal evidence adduced by the defendant, including her oral testimony, discloses that she had no independent source of substantial income and was earning her livelihood by working as a domestic help in three houses, earning approximately Rs. 3,500/- per month. Though an alternate plea was taken that she had invested 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. 18. 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. 18. 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. 19. On an overall re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court finds no 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. 20. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The regular first appeal is dismissed.