- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44694 CRP No. 52 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.52 OF 2020 BETWEEN: S A RAZAK AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O SYED HUSSAIN RESIDING AT HOUSE LIST NO.28/5J, “JAYAMMA BUILDING”, 1ST FLOOR, NEAR OLD POLICE LANE ‘A’ CROSS ROAD, EARLIER KNOWN AS NANJA REDDY COLONY, HAL POST, BENGALURU 560 017, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.NAWAZ S/O MUNNAR. …PETITIONER (BY MS.ADITI FOR SRI SAMPATH A, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O LATE R.ABBAIAH REDDY 2. A. JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE R.ABBAIAH REDDY, 3. A VIMALA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, D/O LATE R.ABBAIAH REDDY, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44694 CRP No. 52 of 2020 4. A JYOTHI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, D/O LATE R.ABBAIAH REDDY, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.108, KODIHALLI VARTHUR HOBLI, H.A.SANITARY BOARD AREA INDIRANAGAR (POST), BANGALORE-560038. 5. R JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, W/O LATE VENKATARAMANA REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.102, RAMAIAH COMPOUND, KODIHALLI, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038 6. A R VIJAYARAGHAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE M.RAMAIAH REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.108, KODIHALLI, VARTHUR HOBLI, H.A.SANITARY BOARD AREA, INDIRANAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 038 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.B.RAVI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI ASHOK B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6; VIDE ORDER DATED 16.12.2020, NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT AND PLACED EXPARTE; VIDE ORDER DATED 22.06.2024, R5 IS DEAD AND BRINGING LRS WOULD NOT ARISE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.11.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2149/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND INJUNCTION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44694 CRP No. 52 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Ms.Aditi, Advocate for Sri Sampath A, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the revision petitioner whose suit in O.S No.2149/2006 on the file of the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act came to be dismissed. 3. Validity of the said judgment of dismissal of the suit is called in question in this revision petition. 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: Revision Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit contending that plaintiff was in possession of the portion of the property bearing district No.28/5/J carved out of Sy.No.84/2 Jayamma Building, Nanjareddy Colony, comprising of a hall, room and a kitchen in total measuring 3 squares within the boundaries mentioned in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44694 CRP No. 52 of 2020 the schedule to the plaint, morefully described hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’. “All that piece and parcel of first portion of property bearing District 28/5/J, carved out of Sy.No.84/2, Jayamma Building, Nanjareddy Colony, Old Police lane, A Cross Road, HAL Post, Bengaluru-560 017, comprising of a hall, room, kitchen and hall measuring three (3) square and bounded on: East by: Portion of the same property in occupation of tenants. West by: Stair Case, North by: Smt.Balamma’s property, South by: Vacant space and thereafter ACC sheet houses belonging to 5th defendant.” 5. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants, in the guise of executing the eviction decree obtained against Jayaram Adyantha, wrongfully dispossessed the petitioner/ plaintiff from the suit property and therefore suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act came to be filed. 6. Suit, on due contest came to be dismissed. 7. Learned Trial Judge while dismissing the suit of the revision petitioner in O.S.No.2149/2006 by the judgment dated 17.11.2018 has supplied adequate reasons for dismissing the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44694 CRP No. 52 of 2020 suit and has noted that plaintiff was not in possession of the property nor the defendants have evicted the plaintiff in the guise of executing the decree passed in eviction proceedings. 8. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the judgment of the Trial Court is culled out hereunder for ready reference: “21. It is the case of the defendant No.1 to 4 and 6 that one Jayaram Adyantha was the tenant and he was evicted with due process of law. According to defendant No.5, the plaintiff was the tenant under her. It is not in dispute that defendant No.5 had filed HRC No.1162/93 against Jayaram Adyantha vide Ex.D-29 in which, the suit property is mentioned as 1st floor in Survey No.84/2. It is not the case of the defendant No.5 that the property covered in Ex.D-29 and present suit property are different. Ex.D-29 was produced by defendant No.5 (D.W.2). Therefore, she cannot say that Jayaram Adyantha was not the tenant. The petition filed by her came to be allowed but the said order has not been got implemented. Further, there is serious dispute between defendant No.5 and other defendants with regard to the title over the suit property. Ex.D-14 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.7243/2006 filed by defendant No.5 against other defendants for declaration and delivery of vacant possession. The said suit came to be dismissed as appears in Ex.D-14 and 15 judgment and decree. However, it is submitted that an appeal against the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44694 CRP No. 52 of 2020 judgment and decree filed before the Hon'ble High Court is pending. The property involved in the said suit is 25 guntas in Survey No.84/3. 22. To substantiate that defendant No.1 to 4 and 6 took the possession of the suit property in due process of law, they had produced Ex.11-28 certified copy of the order sheet in HRC No.319/97 and the judgment and decree in the said case. The said petition was filed by defendant No.1 to 4 and 6 herein u/s.21(1)(h) and (j) of the Rent Control Act and it was dismissed by the trial Court. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners and the Hon'ble High Court in HRRP No.1575/98 had allowed the said petition vide Ex.D-2 Thereafter, defendant No.1 to 4 and 6 had filed Execution Case No.137/2005 against Jayarama Adyantha. It is not the case of the plaintiff and defendant No.5 that the property covered in Ex.D-2 and 3 and the present suit property are different. Ex.D-3 is the copy of the Ex. Petition in 137/2005. Ex.D-4 is the order sheet. Ex.D-5 is the mahazar drawn by the Court bailiff Ex.D-6 is the possession receipt. On perusal of the same, it appears that the suit property was vacant and got by breaking open the lock with the help of the police and none were inside the property and possession was handed over in favour of defendant No.1 to 4 and 6. In HRC No.319/97, Jayaram Adyantha had contested the case. Therefore, the very proceedings initiated against Jayaram Adyantha is sufficient to hold that he was the tenant. It is not stated by the plaintiff as to why he did not file any petition u/o.21 of C.P.C. for possession since defendant - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44694 CRP No. 52 of 2020 No.1 to 4 and 6 had taken possession by invoking the provisions u/o.21 of C.P.C. Hence, on that ground also, it cannot be said that plaintiff was in possession over the suit property. For the above said reasons, I answer issue No.1 and 3 in negative.” 9. Pertinently, learned Trial Judge took note of the bailiff report vide Ex.D-5 and delivery receipt vide Ex.D-6 before dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has preferred the present revision petition on the following grounds:  “ The Trial Court failed to appreciate that the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner was under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and therefore, the only question that was required to be adjudicated was to find out whether the petitioner was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of dispossession or Mr. Jayaram Adyanatha was in possession. The court below failed to note that respondent No.5 had filed an eviction petition against Jayaram Adyanath in HRC 1162/1993 and the same allowed (Ex.D29). That apart, the respondent No.1 to 4 and respondent No.6 had filed an application to implead themselves in HRC No.1162/93 which was dismissed. That from a perusal of the documents exhibited in the above case it was absolutely clear that it was the petitioner who was in possession on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44694 CRP No. 52 of 2020 21-10-2005 and that he was forcefully disposed from the suit schedule property without there being an Order of eviction against him.  The Trial Court utterly failed to note the clear admission of the respondent No.1 to 4 and 6 in their evidence wherein they have admitted that on 21-10- 2005 (date of dispossession) petitioner did not resist dispossession. If the respondent No.1 to 4 and 6 have pleaded that petitioner did not resist dispossession, it only means that the petitioner was in possession and that he was dispossessed without an Order of eviction passed against him, hence the finding of the Trial Court that the petitioner was not in possession of the suit schedule property on 21-10- 2005 in illegal and liable to be set aside.  The Trial Court failed to appreciate that the only question to be decided in the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was to findout who was in possession and whether he was dispossessed illegally. The respondent No.1 to 4 and 6 having admitted that the petitioner did not resist dispossession, the Trial Court should have held that he was in possession. If the Trial Court had correctly assessed pleadings and evidence it could not have held that the petitioner was not in possession of the suit schedule property on the date of dispossession contrary to the admitted fact. Hence the finding of the Trial Court is perverse, illegal and liable to be set aside. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44694 CRP No. 52 of 2020  The finding of the Trial Court with regard to the Judgment / Order passed in HRC 1162/1993 against Jayaram Adayanath that no further action was taken to execute the Order is illegal. The Trial Court failed to note that the very same person i.e. Jayaram Adyanath had admitted that he was a tenant of respondent No.5 and that he agreed to deliver possession to her.” 11. Ms.Adithi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ plaintiff, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that the learned Trial Judge has not taken into consideration the relevant aspects of the matter and identified the property and wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 12. Per contra, Sri Ashok B Patil, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is just and necessary for this Court to cull out Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which reads as follows: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44694 CRP No. 52 of 2020 6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.— (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person 3[through whom he has been in possession or any person] claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. (2) No suit under this section shall be brought— (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the Government. (3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed. (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.” 15. On close reading of the above provision, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to show that plaintiff was in possession of the suit property six months earlier to the date of dispossession. The plaintiff is required to prove that he has been dispossessed within a period of six months from the date of filing of the suit. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44694 CRP No. 52 of 2020 16. In that regard, contention of the plaintiff in the plaint assumes importance. 17. In the plaint, it is contended that plaintiff was in possession of the property and by way of executing the eviction decree Jayaram Adyantha dispossessed the plaintiff. 18. Bailiff report marked at Ex.D.5 and delivery receipt at Ex.D.6 makes it clear that eviction decree was against Jayaram Adyantha and the schedule property was in first floor and it was locked from outside. By break opening the lock with the police help, the bailiff has handed over the vacant possession of the property in first floor to the Decree Holder namely Jagadeesh. 19. The said aspect of the matter is established by the defendants by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record which has been appreciated by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment in paragraphs 21 and 22 as referred to supra. 20. Moreover, if the plaintiff is the owner of the property, it is always open for the plaintiff to file necessary suit seeking - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44694 CRP No. 52 of 2020 declaration and possession. That remedy is always available to the plaintiff. 21. With that liberty for the plaintiff, the following: ORDER Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4