- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15212 RSA No. 1463 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1463 OF 2018 BETWEEN: MR. WILLIAM D’SOUZA S/O LATE SATHURININE D’SOUZA, R/AT SOUZA COMPOUND, VENOOR VILLAGE AND POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-574242. SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs. 1(a) SMT. BENEDICT D’SOUZA W/O LATE WILLIAM D’SOUZA, AGED 70 YEARS, 1(b) VINCENT D’SOUZA W/O LATE WILLIAM D’SOUZA, AGED 45 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SOUZA COMPOUND, VENOOR VILLAGE & POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574242. (AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 10.09.2024) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED LRs. OF DECD. SOLE APPELLANT I.E., A1 (A & B)) AND: SRIMATH ANNATHESHWARA DEVARU SRIMATH ANANTHESHWARA TEMPLE, MANJESHWAR, MANJESHWARA POST, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15212 RSA No. 1463 of 2018 KASARAGODU TALUK & DISTRICT-671323 REP. BY PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF TRUSTEES, SRI M. ANANTHESHWARA KAMATH, S/O LATE B.M. PANDURANGA KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.03.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.4/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY, D.K., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.178/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY, D.K. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2018 passed in R.A.No.4/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Belthangady (‘First Appellate Court’ for short), whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2013 passed in O.S.No.178/2004 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Belthangady (‘Trial Court’ for short) decreeing - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15212 RSA No. 1463 of 2018 the suit for possession and mesne profits in favour of the plaintiff-temple. 2. The plaintiff, Srimath Anantheshwara Devaru Sri math Anantheshwar Temple claimed to be the owner of the land in Sy.No.154/2D(1P) situated at Karimanelu Village, Belthangady Taluk. The defendant had taken up the suit schedule property on lease under a rent bond dated 02.12.1981, agreeing to pay a rent of `2/- per month. Later, the plaintiff required the property and issued a termination notice dated 12.04.2004 calling upon the defendant to vacate the property. Despite service of notice, the defendant failed to vacate the premises. Consequently, the plaintiff instituted O.S.No.178/2004 seeking possession and mesne profits, which was decreed by the Trial Court. 3. The defendant appeared and filed written statement inter alia contending that the property was Mulgeni (tenanted) land and the plaintiff was only a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15212 RSA No. 1463 of 2018 Mulidar. By virtue of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974 (‘Act’ for short) the property had vested in the Government. It is stated that the rent bond relied upon by the plaintiff was in fact Mulgeni rent bond and that the defendant had constructed a house by investing about `10,00,000/- and the plaintiff could not seek possession without paying compensation for improvements. 4. The Trial Court framed necessary issues and held that the execution of the rent bond dated 02.12.1981 was admitted establishing landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The defendant failed to produce any material to show that the property was tenanted land or that proceedings were pending before the Land Tribunal. The termination notice dated 12.04.2004 was duly served and the tenancy stood terminated. The trial Court further held that the defendant failed to prove the alleged Mulgeni tenancy or improvements made on the property, and by the judgment and decree, the trial Court decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15212 RSA No. 1463 of 2018 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendant preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, re-appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence and held that Ex.P3 is a rent bond and not a Mulgani document and the defendant himself admitted the execution of the document. The First Appellate Court held that the property was a non- agricultural property and therefore the Act was not attracted. It is held that the alleged Mulgeni Kararu dated 24.10.2000 was not proved as only a xerox copy of the document was produced. The First Appellate Court further held that the defendant failed to prove any improvements made on the property. Consequently, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 6. The principal contention urged by the appellant is that under the Kararu Patra dated 02.12.1981 (Ex.P3), the parties had agreed that the plaintiff should pay the value of the land standing on the suit property and that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15212 RSA No. 1463 of 2018 the defendant is liable to vacate the property only upon such payment being made. The Trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence held that Ex.P3 discloses that the recital only refers to payment of value of the portion of the building that was already in existence at the time of execution of the rent bond. The Trial Court gave a clear finding that the old building which was originally situated on the property had collapsed and that defendant thereafter constructed a new building. The Trial Court further held that the document does not provide that the plaintiff is liable to compensate the defendant for any improvements or new constructions subsequently made by him. 7. The Courts below have rightly held that such construction constitutes improvements made by the defendant and that the plaintiff is not liable to pay compensation of the same in the absence of any stipulation in the rent bond. It is also not in dispute that the defendant entered possession under the rent bond - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15212 RSA No. 1463 of 2018 dated 02.12.1981 and the execution of the said bond is admitted. The Courts below therefore concluded that the relationship of landlord-tenant existed between the parties and the tenancy was validly terminated by issuance of notice. 8. The plea of the defendant that the suit property is a Mulgeni (tenanted) land attracting the provisions of Act has been concurrently rejected by both the Courts below on the ground that no material was produced to establish the tenancy and the alleged Mulgeni Kararu Patra dated 24.10.2000 was also not proved. 9. The First Appellate Court, being the last fact finding Court has re-appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and has concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. The findings so recorded are purely findings of fact based on evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality, warranting interference in this appeal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15212 RSA No. 1463 of 2018 10. The manner in which the Courts below have assessed the entire oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC and accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.178/2004 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Belthangady and in R.A.No.4/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Belthangady are herby stand confirmed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25