- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31944 RSA No. 1055 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1055 OF 2025 (RES) BETWEEN: SMT.FARIDAMMA @ FARIDABANU W/O BASHA SAB AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT KHAZI MOHALLA NEAR RANGAIAHNA BAGILU CHITRADURGA TOWN CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577501 …APPELLANT (BY SRI JAGAN MOHAN M T, ADVOCATE) AND: C.R. PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O LATE RAJAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT VADDARAPALYA HIREGUNTANURU HOBLI CHITRADURGA TALUK-577 520 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K P CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.04.2025 PASSED IN RA NO.13/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.264/2016 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31944 RSA No. 1055 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Jagan Mohan M.T. learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.P.Chandrashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendant is questioning the validity of the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2023 passed in O.S.No.264/2016 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, confirmed in R.A No.13/2024 dated 28.04.2025 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chitradurga, whereby defendant was directed to vacate and hand over the possession of the property to the plaintiff within six months from the date of decree and to pay rent of Rs.1,000/- per month from 05.12.2014 till the date of suit by deducting the advance amount of Rs.10,000/-. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31944 RSA No. 1055 of 2025 A suit for eviction came to be filed in respect of following property by the plaintiff contending that suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff which has fallen to the share of his grandfather by name Thimmappa. Description: “The part and parcel of tiles and zinc sheet roofed old house with site property bearing Chitradurga Town Municipal Old Door Nos.1016 and 964 for its Assessment Khata No.159/ 1602/1016, measuring East-West 42 feet and North-South 47 feet and the same is situated second block, old higher primary school and Khaji Moholla Road, Chitradurga Town, Taluk and District. Out of this Eastt- West: 42 feet and the North-South: 23 and half feet only and the same is bounded on East by: Road, West by: Road, North by: Remaining 42 x 23 and half feet tails and zink sheet roofed old house with site property in the same assessment khata No.159/1602/2016 which belongs to plaintiff and the same has been given to one Thimmakka, w/o Ramanna on rent basis, South by: house property belongs to daughter in law of Mahalingappa.” 4. After the death of Thimmappa, khatha of the schedule property stood transferred to the name of grandmother of the plaintiff by name Kenchamma, mother of the plaintiff by name Sumangalamma and uncle by name Madhukar. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31944 RSA No. 1055 of 2025 5. It is further contended that Sumangalamma and Rajagopala are the parents of the plaintiff. After the death of Kenchamma and Sumangalamma, uncle of the plaintiff by name Madhukar and mother of the plaintiff Sumangalamma have given up their rights in respect of the suit property in the year 2004 and thereafter, katha of the suit property were transferred into the name of the plaintiff and as such he has become the absolute owner of the suit property. 6. It is also contended by the plaintiff that on 05.02.2013 defendant approached the plaintiff to let out the suit property on monthly rental basis and plaintiff agreed for the same. 7. As per the oral agreement, fixed the rate of rent at Rs.3,000/- and defendant paid advance amount of Rs.10,000/- on 05.02.2013 and took possession of the suit property and thereafter he is in possession of the suit property as tenant. 8. It is further contended that the defendant stopped paying the rentals and therefore, plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the rent or to vacate the premises. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31944 RSA No. 1055 of 2025 9. But defendant refused for the same and therefore plaintiff issued legal notice on 14.12.2015 calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears of Rs.36,000/- and vacate the suit property. 10. Defendant has given an untenable reply and therefore suit was filed. 11. Upon receipt of the suit summons, defendant appeared and filed detailed written statement denying the relationship. 12. Learned Trial Judge after raising necessary issues recorded the evidence of the parties and decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting six months time and to pay arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from 05.12.2014 till the date of suit deducting the advance amount in a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the arrears of rent. 13. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.13/2024. 14. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re- appreciation of the factual and legal aspects of the matter, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31944 RSA No. 1055 of 2025 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. 15. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court in this appeal on the following grounds.  That the both Judgment and Decree dated 28/04/2025 in R.A. No. 13/2024 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Chitradurga and Judgment and Decree dated 25/11/2023 in O.S. No. 264/2016 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Chitradurga are unjust, illegal, capricious, arbitrary and against to all principals of law.  That the Trial Court judge was erred in decreeing the suit of Respondent by holding the Issue No. 1 to 5 in against the Appellant and first appellate court judge was erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and by confirming the Trial Court judgment and decree. By holding the points for consideration against the Appellant.  That the Trial Court was erred in decreeing the suit of respondent by holding that the respondent has proved that he is the owner of the suit scheduled property based on documents like exhibit P3 and P4 in which the appellant is not a party and exhibit P5 and P6 which are not the titled documents. That the first appellant court was erred in confirming the finding of trial court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31944 RSA No. 1055 of 2025  That the Trial court was erred in not considered the documents produced by the appellant to show that she is the owner and position of the suit scheduled property. The first appellant court was erred in confirming the same.  That the both trial court and first appellate court were erred in holding that the respondent has proved that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between appellant and respondent even the respondent has not produced any documents to show that there is a Jural relationship between appellant and respondent.  That the both trial court and first appellant court were erred in holding that the appellant is tenant of respondent when the appellant produced the documents to show that she is the owner of suit scheduled property and not tenant under respondent.  That the both trial court and first appellant court were erred in holding that the plaintiff proved the due termination of lease has required under section 106 of TP Act when the respondent has not produced any rent agreement or lease agreement.  That both trial courts was erred in holding that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of eviction has against the defendant with respect of suit scheduled property when there is no landlord and tenant relationship. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31944 RSA No. 1055 of 2025 first appellant court was erred in confirming the findings of trial court.  That the Trial Court and first appellant court were erred in holding that the plaintiff is entitled for the arrears of rent, when the respondent has not produced any rental receipts to show that the appellant is paying the rent to the respondent and from what date she is in arrears of the rent.  That the Trial court was erred in decreeing the suit of respondent based on only oral and documentary evidence of respondents and disbelieving and discarding the evidence of appellant. The first appellate court was erred in confirming the same.  That the both trial court were erred in not properly considering the evidence both oral and documentary of both parties. That the documents like Ex D1 to D8 shows that Appellant is the owner and in position of the suit scheduled property.  That the first appellate court was erred not gone into independent enquiry of the appeal. It was only repeated the findings given by trial court in it's judgment.” 16. Following substantial questions of law are raised in the appeal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31944 RSA No. 1055 of 2025 “(i) Whether the Trial court is justified in decreeing the suit of respondent by holding that he has proved the ownership over the suit scheduled property when the appellant also claiming ownership over the suit scheduled property and there is a dispute of the ownership between appellant and respondent? Whether first Appellate court is justified in confirming the trial court finding? (ii) Whether the Trial court was justified in decreeing the suit for respondent for eviction against the appellant when there is no landlord and tenant relationship between appellant and respondent? Whether first Appellate court was justified in confirming the trial court finding? (iii) Whether both trial court and first appellate court were justified in not properly consider the documents produced by the appellant and oral evidence of the appellant?” 17. Sri Jagan Mohan M.T. learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant, reiterating the grounds are in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that both the Courts have failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiff has failed to establish ownership over the suit property and there was no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. 18. Therefore, the decree passed by trial Court, mechanically confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs relook by - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31944 RSA No. 1055 of 2025 admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 19. Per contra, Sri K.P. Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned judgments. 20. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 21. On such perusal of the material on record, if the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property is to be accepted, as per the settled principles of law, defendant must vacate the suit premises and establish the title over the property. 22. Very questioning of the title in the landlord itself is injurious to the case of the defendant and therefore, the Trial Judge decreeing the suit of the plaintiff is just and proper. 23. Further, Trial Court has also taken into consideration the probative value of the revenue documents while concluding that - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31944 RSA No. 1055 of 2025 the plaintiff has established his ownership rights over the suit property. 24. Admittedly, even according to the plaintiff, suit property was the ancestral property and as such, expecting the title deeds in respect of the suit property to be produced by the plaintiff is next to impossibility which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge. 25. Admittedly defendant is a stranger and not a member of the family of the plaintiff. 26. Under such circumstances, on what basis that the defendant entered into suit property is a question that has to be established by the defendant. 27. No such attempt is made by the defendant to say that she is in permissive possession or a licensee or by what method she has occupied the premises. 28. Setting up the contra title in the municipality by the defendant shows the malafides in opposing the suit claim of the plaintiff. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31944 RSA No. 1055 of 2025 29. If the municipality is the owner of the property, as is contemplated by the defendant, the municipality will take possession of the property from the plaintiff. No such claim is made by the municipality either. 30. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, decreeing of the suit by the Trial Judge, which has been rightly confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference in the Second Appeal. 31. Accordingly, the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum and substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, referred to supra do not merit further consideration to admit the appeal. 32. Hence, following: ORDER (i) Appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed. (ii) In the interest of justice, time is extended till 31.08.2025 to vacate and hand over the premises. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE Kcm/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 93