- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28749 RFA No. 1631 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1631 OF 2024 (POS) BETWEEN: 1. MURALI BABU S/O PONNUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. AMUDHA W/O MURALI BABU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.21 1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS BELLIMATADA ROAD, BAKSHI GARDEN BENGALURU-560053. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. VIDYA .S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SARALA .M W/O T. MANI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.106/55 MARIAMMAN KOVIL STREET PUTTER VILLAGE, VELLORE TALUK TAMIL NADU-632105. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY .N, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28749 RFA No. 1631 of 2024 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.12.2023 PASSED IN OS.NO.8310/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT Though the matter is listed for hearing on I.A.No.2/2024., since the records reveal that the appellants/defendants have abused the process of law and are not willing to hand over possession despite having suffered an eviction order in HRC.No.10087/2007, with the consent of the learned counsel on record, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. The captioned appeal is by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree for possession granted in OS No. 8310/2019. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28749 RFA No. 1631 of 2024 3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per rank before the trial Court. 4. The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S. No. 8310/2019 seeking possession of the suit schedule property, asserting absolute ownership based on a registered sale deed dated 21.12.1992 executed by one Shankaramma. The defendants No. 1 and 2 are stated to be relatives of the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was let out to defendant No. 2 under a rental agreement dated 20.01.2006, at a monthly rent of Rs.300/-, for a period of 11 months. The plaintiff contends that defendant No. 2 failed to vacate the premises despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff and her husband, which necessitated the initiation of eviction proceedings in HRC No. 10087/2007 before the XV Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. The said proceedings were contested by the present defendant No. 1 and were ultimately allowed. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff initiated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28749 RFA No. 1631 of 2024 execution proceedings in Ex. P. No. 15357/2008 and claims to have taken possession of the suit schedule property on 15.11.2008 through Court. 5. The plaintiff further alleges that while she was hospitalized, and the premises was kept under lock, the defendants, taking undue advantage of the situation, unlawfully re-entered the suit property by breaking open the lock. Despite lodging a complaint with the jurisdictional police, no criminal action was initiated, and the police issued an endorsement stating that the dispute is civil in nature. In light of the inaction by the police authorities, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 08.08.2019 and subsequently filed the present suit seeking recovery of possession. 6. Upon receipt of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the plaint averments. The defendants, on the contrary, contended that the suit schedule property was acquired - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28749 RFA No. 1631 of 2024 from joint family funds and that they have been in continuous possession since the time of their father. They further contended that during the pendency of the execution proceedings, a compromise was arrived at with the intervention of family members and well-wishers, wherein the plaintiff is alleged to have agreed to give quietus to the dispute and consequently got the execution petition closed by making an endorsement that possession was delivered. According to the defendants, actual possession was never parted with and they continued to remain in lawful possession based on the said understanding. 7. The trial Court, after framing issues, afforded an opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and produced 12 documents, which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P12, to substantiate her claim that the defendants had unlawfully re-entered the property. Defendant No. 2 entered the witness box as DW1 and let in oral evidence but did not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28749 RFA No. 1631 of 2024 produce any rebuttal documentary evidence except for a single photograph. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court answered Issue No. 1 in the affirmative, holding that the plaintiff had established that the defendants had broken open the lock and unlawfully re-entered the suit schedule property. Consequently, Issue No. 5 was also answered in the affirmative, entitling the plaintiff to recover possession. The trial Court accordingly decreed the suit and directed the defendants to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property. This decree is under challenge. 8. Heard the counsel appearing for defendants and learned counsel appearing for plaintiff. 9. The following point would arise for consideration: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28749 RFA No. 1631 of 2024 i. Whether the decree for possession granted by the trial Court in OS No. 8310/2019 suffers from perversity and warrants interference?" ii. What order? Finding on point nos. i and ii: 10. The plaintiff, while seeking recovery of possession based on title, has placed strong reliance on the eviction order passed in HRC No. 10087/2007. The certified copy of the said order is marked at Exhibit P12. On perusal of Ex. P12, it is evident that the eviction proceedings were instituted under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, asserting that the suit schedule premises was required by the plaintiff for her bonafide use and occupation. The HRC Court, after considering the rival contentions, specifically rejected the objections raised by the defendants and came to the conclusion that the petitioners (plaintiff in the present suit) had successfully discharged their burden in establishing the bonafide - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28749 RFA No. 1631 of 2024 requirement. The HRC Court also took note of the conduct of the defendants, particularly the fact that they went to the extent of disowning the signatures on their own verified objections filed before the Court, and consequently held that their evidence was unreliable and unworthy of credence. On the strength of such findings, the eviction petition was allowed, directing the defendants to vacate and hand over vacant possession. The said order has attained finality and culminated in execution proceedings being initiated in Ex. P. No. 15357/2008, under which the plaintiff claims to have taken possession on 15.11.2008. This document (Ex. P12), in the considered opinion of this Court, is a decisive piece of evidence that clinches the controversy raised in the present suit. 11. In the present proceedings, the defendants have not denied the existence of the eviction order or the fact that execution proceedings were initiated pursuant to the same. However, they have set up a new version in the written statement, to the effect that during the pendency - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28749 RFA No. 1631 of 2024 of the execution petition, with the intervention of family members and well-wishers, a settlement was purportedly arrived at, whereby the plaintiff allegedly agreed to re- deliver possession to the defendants and to give quietus to the dispute. It is the case of the defendants that, on account of such understanding, the execution petition was closed with an endorsement that possession had been delivered, though in fact the property continued in their possession. This assertion, in the considered opinion of this Court, is an afterthought and a clear attempt to obfuscate the real facts. Once such a stand is taken by the defendants, the burden squarely shifts upon them to substantiate their version by leading cogent and credible evidence. They were required to examine the alleged mediators or family members at whose instance the plaintiff is said to have agreed to the so-called settlement. However, barring vague and bald assertions in the written statement, the defendants have failed to produce even a single piece of evidence oral or documentary to support - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28749 RFA No. 1631 of 2024 their claim. No independent witness was examined, nor was any affidavit or record placed on file to prove the existence of such a settlement. The failure of the defendants to discharge this burden significantly weakens their defence. 12. On an overall assessment of the pleadings and evidence, this Court is of the firm view that the conduct of the defendants clearly reveals a calculated abuse of the process of law. Having suffered an order of eviction and allowing the same to attain finality, the defendants have, during the temporary absence of the plaintiff, unlawfully and highhandedly re-entered the suit schedule property. Their current assertion of possession based on an alleged family arrangement or settlement remains wholly unsubstantiated and lacks any legal or evidentiary support. In contrast, the plaintiff has successfully demonstrated not only her title to the suit schedule property but also the fact that possession was obtained through lawful process of execution following an order of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28749 RFA No. 1631 of 2024 eviction by a competent Rent Court. In such circumstances, the trial Court, having carefully appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly decreed the suit for possession and directed the defendants to vacate the premises. This Court, on re- appreciation of the entire material on record, does not find any perversity, infirmity, or illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court which would warrant interference. 13. Accordingly, the point no.i for consideration stands answered in the negative, holding that the trial Court was fully justified in granting the relief of possession in favour of the plaintiff. 14. In view of the above discussion, the appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. The defendants are directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff, which shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28749 RFA No. 1631 of 2024 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the defendants has made a fervent plea for some indulgence in the matter of handing over possession, submitting that the daughter of the defendants is presently pursuing her education and an abrupt dispossession may cause undue hardship. It is further submitted that the defendants are prepared to furnish an undertaking by way of an affidavit to vacate and hand over possession on or before 30.10.2025. The said request, being reasonable, is taken on record. Accordingly, by way of a last opportunity, the defendants are granted time until 30.10.2025 to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit schedule property, subject to the filing of an affidavit of undertaking within one week from the date of this order. 16. It is, however, made clear that no further extension of time shall be entertained under any circumstances. The defendants shall report compliance by filing an affidavit of surrender in the Registry on or - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28749 RFA No. 1631 of 2024 before 30.10.2025, failing which, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to seek appropriate coercive steps in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20