- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25090-DB RFA No. 2340 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2340 OF 2024 (EJE) BETWEEN: M PARASMAL JAIN S/O SRI.MOTILAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O 742, NEW MASJID ROAD, T DASARAHALLI, TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 057. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAHABALESHWARA RAO K N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KAMALESH KUMAR S/O SRI.MADAN LAL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O ROBERTSONPET, BEHIND SYNDICATE BANK, B.M ROAD, KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT. 2. SRI. NAVAB S/O SRI.SANNAULLA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT OLD NO.348, NEW NO.742 Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25090-DB RFA No. 2340 of 2024 NEW MASJID ROAD, T DASARAHALLI, TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 057. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.07.2024 IN O.S.NO.5192/2011 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-25) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the decree with regard to ejectment has already been executed and that, vacant possession of the premises have been handed over in pursuance to the orders passed in execution. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he was the first - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25090-DB RFA No. 2340 of 2024 defendant in the suit and that the finding with regard to the liability to pay mesne profits is as against the second defendant. However, it is submitted that in execution, the plaintiff is proceeding against the first defendant as well. 3. Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the consideration and the answer framed by the Trial Court to issue No.3, it is clear that it was the second defendant who was in possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant. 4. In the said circumstances, it is clear that the decree with regard to payment of damages is against the second defendant. Clarifying this aspect, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14