- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53826 RFA No. 2505 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2505 OF 2025 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. DR.B.V.KARTHIKEYAN AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O SRI. A.V.VARADHAN 2. DR RAADHIKKA KARTHIK W/O DR B V KARTHIKEYAN AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS BOTH ARE R/A NO.13 SRI KRISHNA PLAZA SAI RAM LAYOUT, 6TH CROSS, MAJOR SANDEEP UNNIKRISHNAN ROAD ATTUR LAYOUT, YELAHANKA BANGALORE- 560 064 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BHEEMAIAH.K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.MUNILAKSHMI W/O. LATE VENKATESH MURTHY AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS 2. SRI SURYA V S/O. LATE VENKATESHMURTHY AGE ABOUT 25 YEARS BOTH ARE R/A NO.44/1, CHIKKABETTAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA YESHWANTHPURA MAIN ROAD NEAR MASJID VIDYARANYAPURA POST Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53826 RFA No. 2505 of 2025 BANGALORE- 560097 …RESPONDENTS (V/O. DTD. 17/12/25 NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.10.2025 PASSED IN OS.NO.5094/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.5094/2023 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.10.2025 passed by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suit filed by the appellants - plaintiffs against the respondents - defendants for recovery of possession of suit 'B' schedule premises from the defendants and for mesne profits and other reliefs, was dismissed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53826 RFA No. 2505 of 2025 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that that appellants - plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for recovery of possession of the suit 'B' schedule premises for mesne profit and other reliefs. The respondents–defendants remained ex-parte and did not file any written statement, nor did they cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses or adduce any defence evidence contesting the suit. Pursuant thereto, the Trial Court framed the following issues: "POINT NO.1 :Whether the Plaintiffs prove that Defendants are in illegal possession over the 'B' schedule property? POINT NO.2: Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the Defendants are liable to pay mesne profit? POINT NO.3: Whether Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of possession of 'B' schedule property? POINT NO.4: Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profit ? If yes, at what rate, from when and till what date? POINT NO.5: What Order or Decree?" 4. Plaintiff No.1 got himself examined as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P.10 were marked. However, the respondents did not contest the suit any further and did not cross-examine PW.1 nor adduced any defence evidence nor filed any written statement. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53826 RFA No. 2505 of 2025 5. Despite this, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the appellants - plaintiffs had failed to establish that the defendants were in unlawful and illegal possession and enjoyment of the suit 'B' schedule premises. 6. In this context, it is pertinent to note that though the oral and documentary evidence of the appellants - plaintiffs had remain unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged in the cross-examination by the defendants, who had failed to substantiate their defence and had not adduced any oral and documentary evidence to establish their alleged right, title, interest or possession over the suit 'B' schedule premises. 7. The Trial Court clearly misdirected itself in passing the impugned judgment and decree thereby dismissing the suit on the sole ground that though the appellants - plaintiffs were the owners of the suit 'B' schedule premises, since the appellants - plaintiffs had not established that the defendants were in unauthorised or illegal possession of the suit 'B' schedule premises, there cannot - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53826 RFA No. 2505 of 2025 be a decree in favour of the appellants - plaintiffs against the respondents - defendants. 8. In this regard, it is also significant to note that having failed to file any written statement in defence of the suit, the respondents - defendants had not cross examined PW.1 nor adduced any defence evidence to indicate or establish or substantiate their right, if any, over the suit 'B' schedule premise. 9. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court clearly fell in error in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants - plaintiffs against the respondents - defendants by passing the impugned judgment and decree, which deserves to be set aside and suit of the appellants - plaintiffs deserve to be decreed in their favour. 10. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 15.10.2025 passed by the Court of VII Additional City Civil and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53826 RFA No. 2505 of 2025 Sessions Judge (CCH-19), Bengaluru in O.S.No.5094/2023, is hereby set aside. (iii) The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with costs throughout, as sought by the appellants - plaintiffs. (iv) The respondents - defendants are granted three (3) months time to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit 'B' schedule premises to the appellants - plaintiffs. Draw up decree accordingly. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27