- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2069 OF 2025 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PRAKASH KUMAR DEAD BY HIS LRS, SMT.SUNANDA, W/O LATE.PRAKASH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. KUMARI.PRADEEPTHI, D/O LATE. PRAKASH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 3. KUMARI PRASHASTHI D/O LATE PRAKASH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF JAIN TEMPLE ROAD, CHICKPET, TUMKUR CITY - 572101. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BHARATH.B. YADAV FOR MS. NIVEDITHA N.,ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 AND: SMT LEELAVATHI DEAD BY LR, SRI.JAYAPRAKASH, S/O LATE. SRINIVAS SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.161, SRI. RANGANATHA KRUPA, 3RD CROSS, SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION, TUMKUR-572 102. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI.BALAGANGADHARA G.S..,ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.09.2025, PASSED IN RA NO. 122/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.10.2024 PASSED IN OS NO. 256/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU, TRIAL COURT DECREED THE SUIT APPELLATE COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL THE SUIT FOR EVICTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellants/defendants questioning the judgment and decree rendered by the Principal Senior Civil Judge CJM, Tumakuru, in RA.No.122/2024 dated 20.09.2025, confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2024 in O.S.No.256/2019 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, whereby the appellants, who are defendants, are directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the respondent/plaintiff within 60 days from the date of the said judgment. 3. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court as plaintiff and defendants for the sake of brevity. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for ejectment and to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff and also by paying the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per month from 01.12.2014 till its realization. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Smt.Kamalamma, who was in possession of the same, and subsequently, Smt.Kamalamma sold the suit schedule property by way of a registered settlement deed dated 18.03.1991 in favour of Karnataka Chinmai Seva Trust, Tumakuru, and that prior to the execution of the registered settlement deed in the year 1978, defendants had approached and requested the said Smt.Kamalamma for the property to be given on rent for residential purposes. Accordingly, it was rented to the defendants by Smt.Kamalamma. The suit schedule premises was given on rent to the defendants by Smt. Kamalamma at the rate of Rs.50/- per month by oral agreement, and the rental amount was paid to Smt. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 Kamalamma till the sale deed was made and the settlement deed was made in favour of the purchaser i.e. Karnataka Chinmai Seva Trust. 5. It is further case of the plaintiff that in pursuance of the said rental agreement, defendants continued in the suit schedule premises as a tenant and stopped paying the rent to the trust. Further defendants became a chronic defaulter on payment of rent. This being the state of affairs, the said Karnataka Chinmai Seva Trust executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 01.12.2014 for a valuable sale consideration and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule premises. 6. It is the case of the plaintiff that immediately after purchase and becoming the owner of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff contacted the defendants personally and sought to quit and deliver the vacant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 possession of the suit schedule property. Defendants requested to continue as a tenant and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.100/- per month but the same was not paid. Hence, legal notice was issued to the defendant on 24.01.2015 by way of registered post, which was accepted and replied by the defendant. Reply notice dated 03.02.2015 denying the averments and also the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In view of the fact that the defendants did not vacate and hand over the possession, plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for eviction and for realization of the rental amount. Accordingly, a suit came to be filed. 7. Upon summons being served, defendants appeared before the trial Court, filed the written statement and based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration. 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, there exist a relationship of land lord and plaintiff and defendants? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 2.Whether the plaintiff proves that, the tenancy of defendants is legally terminated? 3.Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendants are in arrears of rent from 01.12.2014? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for? 5. What Order or Decree? 8. In order to establish and prove the case, plaintiff examined herself as PW1. Plaintiff during the course of suit proceedings died, and her legal representative was brought on record, and he examined himself as PW1 and filed the affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Defendant No.1(a) was examined herself as DW1 and marked the documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D12 and closed the side. 9. The trial Court, upon hearing the arguments and taking into consideration the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, after consideration of the issues, did not find favour with the defendants and consequently agreed with the contentions put forth by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 plaintiff, decreed the suit of the plaintiff, and directed the defendants to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises within 60 days from the date of the judgment and also directed the defendants to pay arrears of rent of Rs.100/- along with interest at the rate of 5% from 01.12.2014 and the consequential order was passed, but the defendants did not vacate the suit schedule premises. 10. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal before the first appellate Court in RA.No.122/2024. Upon the summons being served to the respondent/plaintiff therein and upon appearance and after hearing the arguments, the first appellate Court, after reconsideration and re-analyzing the entire materials placed on record, including the impugned judgment of the trial Court and the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, formulated the following points for consideration. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 1. Whether the appellants have make out a grounds to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S.No.256/2019? 2. Whether the appellant has made out a grounds to allow the appeal and set-aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.256/2019, dated 15.10.2024 by III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Tumakuru? 3. What order? 11. Upon reconsideration and re-analysing the entire materials on record both oral and documentary and the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants, the first appellate Court did not find favour with the defendants. Nevertheless, having taken into consideration the contentions put forth and the documents relied and the judgment of the trial Court, did not agree with the defendants and consequently dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment rendered by the trial Court by its order dated 20.09.2025. 12. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment rendered by the trial Court and the first appellate Court is perverse, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 arbitrary, illegal, as the trial Court and the first appellate Court have not considered the materials placed on record both oral and documentary and no proper application of mind has been done by both the Courts, totally ignored the appreciation of the evidence and the contentions with regard to the affirmative statement made in the settlement deed to not transfer the property in favour of third party without there being any permission obtained from the relevant authority and not considered all these aspects and passed the impugned order. 13. It is also vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellant/defendants that there is absolutely no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants. The trial Court has misconstrued itself with regard to the facts and the law on the point and have rendered ill legal perverse judgment which requires to be set aside. It is also contented by learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the defendant has perfected his title by way of adverse - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 possession which has also not been considered by the trial Court and the first appellate Court as pleaded by him in the written statement, which he seeks is a substantial question of law to be framed by this Court for consideration. 14. It is further contended by learned counsel that the trial Court and the first appellate Court had failed to take into consideration Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and also Section 116 of the Evidence Act which has conveniently been ignored and not taken into consideration the judgment relied by the appellants/defendants before the trial Court and the first appellate Court. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bismillah Be (Dead) by Legal representatives V/s Majeed Shah reported in (2017) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 274 in support of his case and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 learned counsel for the appellants/defendants seeks this Court to frame substantial questions of law as it warrants for interference and delve into matter further for consideration. 16. It is the contention of counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the appellants/defendants do not have any right to question the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as it is not in dispute that the appellants were the tenants of the erstwhile owner of the suit schedule property viz., Smt. Kamalamma and they were paying rent to the original owner of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the appellants have also not disputed the property being transferred to Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust. Therefore, he contends that the appellants have admitted that they were tenants of the original owner of the suit schedule property. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the judgments rendered by the trial Court and the first appellate Court do not call for - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 interference for several reasons. He contends that even in the defence taken by way of filing the written statement, the appellants/defendants have not denied the ownership and title of the suit schedule property initially by Smt. Kamalamma and thereafter by Chinmaya Seva Trust and subsequently the property being transferred to the plaintiff by way of a registered sale deed and such being the case, the question of the appellants/defendants now trying to dispute the title would not be sustainable both on facts and law. 17. It is further contended by the learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff that the appellants/defendants also took up a plea of adverse possession against the respondent/plaintiff in the written statement, but however having not made any counter-claim and having raised a plea of adverse possession, the defendants have infact admitted the title and ownership of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. It is also contended by the learned counsel that once such a plea is taken at the initial - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 stage in the written statement itself and it is not retracted or continued even in this appeal by seeking to frame a substantial question of law to the effect that the defendants have perfected their right by way of adverse possession, the same runs contrary to the argument advanced that the defendants denied the ownership and title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the defendants are trying to blow hot and cold at the same time and deliberately trying to protract the proceedings and has also not paid a single penny of rent to the plaintiff till date. 18. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the judgments relied upon by the defendants would not support the case of the defendants rather they support the case of respondent/plaintiff. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 19. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff relies upon the following judgments in support of his case: 1. Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Silva Uddin -vs- Sri Nagaraju in HRRP no.557/2003 dated 3rd September 2004. 2. Judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Manakchand -vs- Pawan Kumar (dead) through legal representatives - Smt. Manish Goyal & others. 3. Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta -vs Vishvanath Bhkaji Mogul and others - (1997)5 SCC 329 4. Ambica Prasad -vs- Mohd Alam - (2015)13 SCC 13. 20. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondents, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are: i) Whether the appellants/defendants have made out any case for framing any substantial question of law ? ii) If so, what order ? - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 21. It is not in dispute that originally the suit schedule premises was owned by one Smt. Kamalamma and during her ownership, defendants have taken the suit schedule premises on rental basis for residential purpose from the said owner - Smt. Kamalamma on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- by way of an oral agreement. Thereafter Smt. Kamalamma, the original owner executed a registered settlement deed dated 18.3.1991 in favour of Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust. Thereafter, the defendants continued to remain in possession and occupation of the suit schedule property on the basis of permission granted by the Head of the Chinmaya Seva Trust, during which time the defendants stopped paying the rent to the Trust and became chronic defaulters. 22. It is also not in dispute that Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust sold the suit schedule property on 01.02.2014 by way of a registered sale deed to the plaintiff herein for a valuable sale consideration. The plaintiff after becoming the owner of the suit schedule property, made attempt to - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 secure the rent with regard to the suit schedule property from the defendants, which was refused. Hence, left with no alternative, plaintiff got issued legal notice and ultimately on receiving the reply, filed the suit for eviction against the defendants. All these aspects are not in dispute. 23. It is also relevant to mention that plaintiff had in fact initiated certain proceedings against the original owner - Smt. Kamalamma and another person seeking the relief of permanent injunction, wherein the defendants claimed to be tenants and obtained a decree of permanent injunction. Upon careful analysation of the materials on record, both of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, it can be easily concluded that both the Courts have dealt with the matter elaborately taking into consideration the contentions putforth by both parties, adjudicated the same and has arrived at conclusion that the plaintiff has made out a valid case for grant of a decree and accordingly decreed the suit against the defendants. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 24. Upon reconsideration, the first appellate Court having considered the materials once again and after having a re-look upon the documents and the impugned judgment of the trial Court, did not find favour with the appellants/defendants and has rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 25. I do not find any good ground made out or muchless any valid ground to admit the appeal by framing substantial question of law as no such questions of law exist for consideration in view of both courts adjudicating and deciding the same in a proper manner. 26. Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 reads as under. 109. Rights of lessor’s transferee.—If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights and, if the lessee so elects, be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer, cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him: Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee. The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium or rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part so transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any Court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased. 27. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under: "116. Estoppel of tenants and of licensee of person in possession. –– No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession there of shall be permitted to - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given." 28. At this stage, it is also relevant to say a few words about the appellants/tenants. Once the appellants/defendants have admitted their tenancy against the original owner of the suit schedule property, having paid the rent, accepted her ownership and title over the suit schedule property, they cannot turn around and say that they do not admit the title and ownership of either the original owner or the subsequent purchaser, who purchased the suit schedule property from the original owner by a valid registered deed. 29. The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent is pertinent to the facts of the present case. 30. In the case of Silva Uddin -vs- Sri Nagaraju in HRRP No.557/2003 decided on 3rd September 2004, this Court observed at paragraph-7 as under: - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 7. In view of transfer of ownership of the premises to the respondent by the previous lessor, the respondent becomes the lessor and becomes entitled to receive rent in terms of the lease by operation of Section 109 of the T.P. Act. It is relevant to state that in India no attornment of tenancy is necessary in law as Section 109 of the T.P. Act creates a statutory attornment. The section does not insist that transfer of the lessor's rights can take effect only if the tenant attorns. Attornment by the tenant is unnecessary to confer validity to the transfer of the lessor's rights. However, the section protects payment of rent by the tenant to the transferor without notice of the transfer. The transfer of ownership of the premises to the respondent by the previous lessor has resulted in statutory attornment by the tenant in favour of the lessor's transferee i.e. the respondent herein and consequently jural relationship of landlord and tenant. 31. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Prasad -vs- Mohd. Alam and another reported in (2015) 13 SCC 13 is also fairly applicable to the present case. In the said judgment, it is held at paragraph-15 as under: 15. On the question of tenancy, both the trial court and the High Court have not considered the provision of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 “109. Rights of lessor's transferee.— If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him: Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee. The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium or rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part so transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased.” From a perusal of the aforesaid section, it is manifest that after the transfer of lessor's right in favour of the transferee, the latter gets all rights and liabilities of the lessor in respect of subsisting tenancy. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 The section does not insist that transfer will take effect only when the tenant attorns. It is well settled that a transferee of the landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord can take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by the tenant is not necessary to confer validity of the transfer of the landlord's rights. Since attornment by the tenant is not required, a notice under Section 106 in terms of the old terms of lease by the transferor (sic transferee) landlord would be proper and so also the suit for ejectment. 32. At this stage, it is relevant to state that Section 100 of CPC deals with the Scope and powers of the Appellate Court. It is a no more res integra to state that the powers as contemplated under Section 100 CPC are very narrow and limited. This Court, in several catena of judgments, has held that the Appellate Court sitting in the second appeal is not required to appreciate the evidence on record unless there is perversity shown in the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. When two Courts have already - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 considered the question of fact and the question of law to a large extent in detail, even if this Court finds third opinion on the opinions already expressed concurrently by both Courts, it is a general Rule that this Court should refrain from imposing its third opinion merely for the sake of interference when there is no cogent material placed on record. 33. The question of framing of substantial questions of law would depend upon if there is any illegality or perversity in the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and having perused the impugned judgments of both the Courts and having gone through the records, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgments rendered by both the Courts. 34. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the trial Court as well as the first appellate - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 Court have considered all the aspects elaborately, both on facts and law and have come to a right conclusion by decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, which does not call for interference. Having heard the counsel for the appellants/defendants, I do not find any case made out by them to frame substantial question of law for further consideration of the appeal, as none exists. Accordingly, I pass the following Order. O R D E R i. The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself, as there does not exist any substantial question of law to be framed. Ordered accordingly. ii. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the appellant makes a submission after dictating the judgment that there is a marriage ceremony in the house of the appellant/defendant. He files a memo to that effect along with the marriage certificate, which is taken on record. He requests the court for a direction to respondent/plaintiff to postpone the - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14380 RSA No. 2069 of 2025 execution and operation of the Judgment and Decree by three weeks, as it would cause irreparable injury, hardship and embrassment if executed during the marriage period. iii. Considering the same favourably, the Executing Court and the Decree Holder shall not precipitate execution proceedings for three weeks from today. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE paras 1 to 15 .. RCK 16 to 33 .. GSS 34 to end .. RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24