- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29232 WP No. 17366 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI WRIT PETITION NO.17366 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: INDIRA GANDHI PRIMARY EDUCATION SOCIETY AND OTHERS REP. BY SRI N M THEERTHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O N K MATADAIAH OFFICE: NO.396/2, 2ND FLOOR CHAMBER NO.2, A.S.V.N.V. BHAVAN OPP. TO SBI, K G ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009 REG. UNDER MYSORE SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT NO.17 AT 1960 …PETITIONER (BY SRI PAUL CHANDRAN BAYNES, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AYODHYANAGARADA SHIVACHARAYA VYSYA NAGARATHA VIDYAVARAADAKA SANGA K G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009 UNDER MYSORE SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29232 WP No. 17366 of 2025 2. MR. SATEESH S KUDTARKAR FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ADVOCATE 2ND FLOOR, ASVNV BHAVAN NO.39/2, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 009 3. MR. VAGEESH V HIREMATH FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF ADVOCATE 2ND FLOOR, ASVNV BHAVAN NO.39/2, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE-560 009 4. MR. K P CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF ADVOCATE 2ND FLOOR, ASVNV BHAVAN NO.39/2, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE-560 009 5. MR. S M SHIVASHANKAR FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF ADVOCATE 2ND FLOOR, ASVNV BHAVAN NO.39/2, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE-560 009 6. MR. A RAJENDRA S/O MUNISWAMY ARUMUGAM MAJOR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29232 WP No. 17366 of 2025 M/S B M CARS, NO.68 4TH MAIN, HIG PHASE – I NOL AMBUR, MAGAPUR WEST CHENNAI – 600 037 7. MR. PREMUKUMAR ADVOCATE NO.39/2, 2ND FLOOR, ASVNV BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION AND TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.05.2025 IN I.A.NO. 16 OF O.S.NO.5546/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AN DSESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29232 WP No. 17366 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The challenge is to an order dated 02.05.2025 in I.A.No.16 of O.S.No.5546/2017 pending in the Court of XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. It appears that the aforesaid I.A.No.16 was moved under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC to recast the Issues regarding the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the dispute arising out of the jural relationship between the parties for declaration of their rights in accordance with law. The Additional Issues were as follows: Additional Issues 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is an absolute owner of the suit schedule property? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29232 WP No. 17366 of 2025 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that there is a jural relation between the plaintiff and 1st defendant? 3. A perusal of the impugned order reflects that the submissions made in the aforesaid IA were recorded by the Trial Court. In the I.A., a stand was taken that the first defendant had occupied the suit schedule property around ten years back and continued the lease for lifetime by paying the lease amount regularly. The first defendant/petitioner stated that the plaintiff is not the landlord of the schedule premises and has taken lease from the Government of Karnataka for lifetime and small portion is provided to the first defendant on lease for lifetime. The defendants’ advocate has cross examined the plaintiff that the plaintiff is not the landlord. Further cross-examination was (a suggestion) that there is no jural relationship between the landlord/plaintiff and the first defendant. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29232 WP No. 17366 of 2025 4. The objections filed on behalf of the plaintiff was also noted by the Trial Court that the IA was moved by the first defendant with an intention to drag on the matter. The Issues and Additional Issues were already framed in the suit and the first defendant had admitted the jural relationship with the plaintiff. The contention of the first defendant was that he had not committed any breach of terms of oral tenancy with the plaintiff but with the knowledge and permission of the plaintiff, the first defendant had sublet six portions to other defendants. The first defendant had admitted in its pleading about payment of security deposit to the plaintiff at the time of commencement of the tenancy and the payment of monthly rent to the plaintiff. The reply by the first defendant to the notice made it clear that there was no dispute about the jural relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant. 5. The observations of the Trial Court, while answering the point of determination as to whether it was - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29232 WP No. 17366 of 2025 necessary to recast issues for effective adjudication of suit, being answered in the negative, are well thought of and illuminating. The aforesaid objections of the plaintiff were considered and it was observed that the pleadings are foundation of a suit. Neither in the pleadings nor in the evidence, the first defendant had disputed the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The Trial Court has noted that the suit was for ejection and not for declaration of title and the reply to the notice by the first defendant made it clear that there is no dispute about the jural relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant. Accordingly, the point for determination, as noted above was answered in the negative and I.A.No.16 was dismissed. 6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Issues sought to be added by way of Additional Issues were necessary for the purpose of determining the real issue in dispute between the parties, however, he has not been able to address on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29232 WP No. 17366 of 2025 the aspect of admission made by the first defendant before the Trial Court which founds part of the pleadings. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, since there is an admission, there cannot be an issue as sought for. This Court finds that the order of the Trial Court is sound and based on settled legal principles. This petition is therefore dismissed. 7. All pending IAs stand disposed of. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE SN