- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3707 RFA No. 171 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.171 OF 2019 (POS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MAHALINGAPPA (BUT IN COURT BELOW WRONGLY SHOWN AS MAHALINGAM) AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, (IN COURT BELOW WRONGLY SHOWN THE AGE) SON OF LATE NARASAIAH, R/AT NO.53, 9TH MAIN ROAD, GANESHA BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 096. …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAVISHANKAR.S FOR SRI MURTHY K, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT LAKSHMI WIFE OF ANANDA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1730, 2ND BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. 2. SMT.SOWMYA D/O ANANDA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.101, 3RD FLOOR, 1ST K BLOCK 12TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE -560 010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI UDAY .K.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1; Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3707 RFA No. 171 of 2019 MS. ARCHITHA SURESH FOR SRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATES FOR R2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.10.2018 PASSED IN O.S.No.2466/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND FOR DAMAGES. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2018 in O.S.No.2466/2014 on the file of III Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru. 2. The suit is for possession to hand over the ‘B’ schedule property to the plaintiff and for mesne profits. 3. The defendant resisted the suit on the premise that he has perfected the title of the property by way of adverse possession and he also filed a counter claim to declare him as owner of the property by way of adverse possession. 4. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of the property based on the registered - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3707 RFA No. 171 of 2019 sale deed dated 10.09.2003, executed by daughter of Chikka Venkataswamy in favour of the plaintiff. Admittedly, Chikka Venkataswamy was the owner of the property. The defendant does not claim to be the heir of Chikka Venkataswamy. 5. Defendant claims that Chikka Venkataswamy allowed him to occupy the property and he is in possession of the property since 1985 and Chikka Venkataswamy died in the year 2003. Defendant claims that he perfected the title over the property by way of adverse possession during the lifetime of Chikka Venkataswamy. Thus, it is urged that the person who sold the property claiming to be the daughter of Chikka Venkataswamy had no title over the property when the property was sold. 6. The Trial Court rejected the plea of adverse possession on the premise that the pleading is not adequate to uphold the said plea. 7. The Trial Court also held that the counter claim by the defendant seeking declaration of title by way of adverse possession is not maintainable as the plea of adverse - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3707 RFA No. 171 of 2019 possession cannot be granted to the plaintiff and it can be only used as a defence in a suit for possession. 8. While answering the issue relating to the adverse possession based on the written statement filed by the defendant, the Trial Court has also answered that the plea of adverse possession is not established. 9. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by the defendant. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant would urge that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others vs. Manjit Kaur and others,1 the counter claim seeking declaration of title based on adverse possession or the suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession is maintainable and the matter requires to be remanded to the Trial Court to consider the counter claim. 11. In addition, it is also urged that the defendant was in possession of property since 1986 and owner of the property 1 AIR 2019 SC 3827, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3707 RFA No. 171 of 2019 Chikka Venkataswamy died in the year 2003. By the time Chikka Venkataswamy died, the defendant had perfected the title of the property by way of adverse possession and the defendant had put up a structure in the suit property, as such, the suit for possession is not maintainable and the daughter of Chikka Venkataswamy could not have sold the property. 12. It is also his further contention that the person who claimed to be the daughter, is not the daughter of Chikka Venkataswamy and Chikka Venkataswamy died issueless. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent would urge that the suit for possession is maintainable based on the sale deed and the defendant has not perfected the title and there is no proper plea and evidence relating to adverse possession. 14. The plaintiff had filed HRC proceedings against the defendant for eviction of the defendant on the premise that the defendant is a tenant. There the defendant disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant. However, the defendant did not raise a plea of adverse possession. The plea of adverse possession is raised for the first time in the year 2014 when the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3707 RFA No. 171 of 2019 suit is filed, as such, would urge that the Trial Court is justified in granting a decree for possession and damages. 15. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 16. Following points arise for consideration: 1. Whether the Trial Court is justified in passing a decree for possession and damages in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant? 2. Whether the appellant has made out a case for production of additional documents? 17. Regarding point Nos.1 and 2 :- Admittedly, Chikka Venkataswamy was the owner of the property. He died in the year 2003. Defendant claims that he is in possession of the property with the permission of Chikka Venkataswamy since 1986. Since which date the possession of defendant became adverse to the interest of real owner Chikka Venkataswamy, is not forthcoming. After the demise of Chikka Venkataswamy the plaintiff who claims to have purchased the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3707 RFA No. 171 of 2019 property from the daughter of Chikka Venkataswamy filed petition seeking eviction of the defendant on the premise that the defendant is the tenant. In the said proceedings the defendant appeared, contested the matter and raised the contention that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property and defendant is not the tenant. 18. It is relevant to notice that, if at all the defendant had perfected the title by way of adverse possession by the time the HRC petition was filed, it was open for the defendant to raise that contention in the said proceeding. In the said proceeding the contention relating to adverse possession is not raised. Since the defendant raised the contention that he is not the tenant and plaintiff is not the landlord, the said HRC proceeding was withdrawn and the plaintiff filed a suit for possession. 19. In the suit, the defendant raised a plea of adverse possession for the first time and in addition, he also filed counter claim seeking declaration of title by of adverse possession. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3707 RFA No. 171 of 2019 20. The Trial Court has considered the plea relating to adverse possession. Except stating that the defendant has perfected the title by way of adverse possession, the other particulars as to from which date the possession become adverse and against whom the possession became adverse is not pleaded. Even the evidence is also lacking in this regard. This being the position, the Trial Court rightly held that the defence of adverse possession is not established. 21. Though it is true that the Trial Court has also come to the conclusion that the defendant by way of counter claim cannot claim a declaration of title by way of adverse possession by referring to the earlier position of law, and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others (supra) which laid down the law to the effect that the relief based on the adverse possession can also be claimed in case the plaintiff seeks a declaration to that effect and establishes plea of adverse possession, the point for consideration is “Whether the defendant has established adverse possession in the instant case”. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3707 RFA No. 171 of 2019 22. Based on the defence raised in the written statement and evidence led before the Court, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that plea of adverse possession raised by the defendant is not established. That being the position, this Court does not deem it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to reconsider the plea relating to adverse possession raised in the counter claim, as the plea raised in the written statement is not established. 23. It is also relevant to notice that there was an agreement for sale in favour of the husband of the plaintiff executed by the original owner Chikka Venkataswamy and also General Power of Attorney executed by Chikka Venkataswamy in favour of husband of the plaintiff on 15.02.1986. Whether the power of attorney is established or not is of little consequence. The reason is after the demise of Chikka Venkataswamy, the property is sold by a person who claims to be the daughter of Chikka Venkataswamy. 24. Though the defendant raised the contention that the person who sold the property to the plaitniff is not the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3707 RFA No. 171 of 2019 daughter, except the denial of such relationship, no evidence is placed to accept the said contention. 25. The sale deed executed by the person claiming to be the daughter of Chikka Venkataswamy would reveal that she is the daughter. No one else has made any other claim stating that he or she is the legal representative of deceased Chikka Venkataswamy. Even the defendant does not claim that he is the legal representative of deceased Chikka Venkataswamy. 26. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 27. It is also submitted that a decree for possession is already executed and possession of the property is delivered to the plaintiff through the process of the Court. This statement is not disputed. 28. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that damages awarded by the Trial Court is without material on record and without there being any issue in this regard. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3707 RFA No. 171 of 2019 29. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent would fairly submit that issue is not framed and the damages fixed at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month is not supported by acceptable evidence. 30. Under these circumstances, the decree awarding damages at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month is set aside. 31. Appellant has also filed an application – I.A.No.5/2025 under Order XLI Rule 27 r/w Section 151 of CPC for production of additional documents to show that he is in possession of the property. Since the suit is one for possession there is no need to allow the said application to consider the defendant's possession of the property. Hence the application is not maintainable. 32. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 22.10.2018 in O.S.No.2466/2014, passed by the learned III Additional City - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3707 RFA No. 171 of 2019 Civil Judge, Bengaluru are set-aside in part by setting aside the decree for damages. (iii) The judgment and decree for possession of the property is confirmed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE MR .