- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 695 OF 2025 (DEC/POS) BETWEEN: SMT. JAYA W/O K.M. MADHU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT. 7/218, (ASST. NO 715) 7TH WARD, RAJARAJESHWARI KALYANA MANTAPA ROAD, KOLLEGALA TOWN, CHAMRAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 440. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJUNATH.G, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. M. JAGADISH S/O. LATE V.N. MANIKYAM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT. 3RD CROSS, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, KOLLEGALA TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 440. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B R VISWANATH.,ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.01.2025. PASSED IN OS.NO.29/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGALA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 12.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CAV JUDGMENT This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.29/2019 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.01.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent – plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule immovable property and for other reliefs was decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the appellant – defendant. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, mesne profits and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule property. The plaintiff specifically contended that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one N.M.Madeshaiah, who acquired the same under a registered Will dated 08.03.1965 executed in his favour by the owner Nanjundaiah, upon whose demise, the said Madeshaiah became the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said Madeshaiah expired leaving behind his wife Smt.Mahadevamma and their children Suresh, Paramesh - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 and Rekha, all of whom jointly sold the suit schedule property for valuable consideration in favour of the plaintiff vide registered sale deed 10.12.2015. It was contended that in pursuance of the said sale deed, the khata of the suit schedule property was changed to the name of the plaintiff who paid taxes and became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It was also contended that at the time of his purchase, the appellant – defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having been inducted therein by his vendors and the plaintiff intimated the defendant about his purchasing the suit schedule property and called upon the defendant to quit, deliver and vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. It was also contended that since the defendant did not comply with the demands made by the plaintiff and after exchange of notices, the plaintiff instituted eviction proceedings in HRC No.2/2017 against the defendant which culminated in an order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the Rent Control Court, dismissing the petition on the ground that the plaintiff had not established the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the defendant. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 constrained to institute the present suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs against the defendant. 3. The appellant – defendant contested the suit by filing written statement disputing and denying the allegations and claim made by the plaintiff. It was contended that the defendant’s mother Smt.Puttamma was residing in the suit schedule property for the past 60 years and after her demise, defendant inherited the property and is in occupation of the suit schedule property from 1971 onwards and in view of the dismissal of HRC No.2/2017 filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, the present suit was not maintainable and is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and the same is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues for consideration:- “ 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is the bonafide purchaser and absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of reg sale deed dated 10-12-2015 by changing the khata into his name? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is in permissive possession of the suit schedule property? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 3) Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is entitled for the possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant in its original condition? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the present and future mesne profit in the form of damages at the rate of RS 2000 pm till the period of handing over the physical possession of the suit schedule property? 5) Whether the defendant proves that, the sale deed dated 10-12-2015 is created one and the same is not acted upon? 6) Whether the defendant proves that, the suit is barred by law of limitation? 7) Whether the suit is valued properly and court fee paid is sufficient ? 8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for? 9) What order?” 5. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P31 were marked, while the defendant examined herself as DW-1 and documentary evidence at Exs.D1 to D7 were marked on her behalf. After hearing both sides, the trial court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and consequently, proceeded to decree the suit by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 passing the impugned judgment and decree, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, who is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 7. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeal are as under:- (i) Whether the trial court was justified in upholding the claim of the plaintiff and rejecting the defence put forth by the defendant? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal? Re-Points 1 and 2: 8. Since both the aforesaid points are interlinked with each other, they are taken up together for consideration. 9. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in order to establish her title over the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has produced the sale deed at Ex.P1, Will at Ex.P2, Khata - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 endorsement, tax paid receipts, revenue records and other documents which conclusively established that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. As against the evidence, apart from the fact that the defendant has not pleaded or proved that she had any manner of right, titled, interest or possession over the suit schedule property, the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff has not been controverted, challenged or impeached by the defendant. In fact, except merely denying the claim of the plaintiff, defendant has not placed any material to establish that she had any right over the suit schedule property and all that she contends is that her mother was in occupation of the suit schedule property and upon her demise, the defendant continued to remain in possession and enjoyment of the property from 1971 onwards; if the material on record is examined on the basis of the rival contentions, it become unmistakably clear that while the plaintiff had established his title over the suit schedule property, the defendant had not substantiated her claim to remain in possession by producing any legal or acceptable evidence. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 trial court was fully justified in upholding the claim fo the plaintiff and rejecting the defence of the defendant. 9.1 The defendant has placed reliance upon the dismissal of the eviction petition in HRC No.2/2017 by the Rent control Court on 06.08.2019 prior to institution of the present suit in order to contend that in view of the same, the present suit was liable to be dismissed. The said contention has been considered by the trial court which has come to the correct conclusion that the said eviction petition filed by the plaintiff was rejected by the HRC court only on the ground that they did not exist jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant and the HRC court did not come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit schedule property or that the defendant had any right over the suit schedule property. Under these circumstances, the trial court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the defendant is not entitled to place reliance upon the said judgment and decree passed in HRC 2/2017 produced at Ex.P30 and Ex.P31 in support of her defence and the said findings recorded by the trial court also do not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 9.2 A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree would indicate that the trial court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the material on record and has correctly upheld the claim of the plaintiff and rejected the defence of the defendant by holding as under:- REASONS “ 12. Issue no.1, 2, 3, 5 and 8: These issues interconnected to each other as such to avoid repetition of facts taken together for discussion. 13. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has purchased the suit property from one Mahadevamma and her children under registered sale deed dated 10-12-2015, who are the lrs of Madeshaiah, who having the acquired the said property under reg Will dated 8-3-1965. And that prior to the sale he was informed by vendors that defendant was inducted in the said suit property as a permissive occupant, and that on approaching her she agreed to surrender the suit house when they called to do so but now denying to handover the possession to the plaintiff. 14. It is stated once the suit property is purchased from the lawful vendors whatever the right and liability had by the vendors are shifted to him and he has got right to file this suit for seeking possession. It is stated prior to filing this suit he has filed HRC Petition No.2/17 which is dismissed on his failure to prove landlord and tenant relationship, but - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 that does not estop him from filing this present suit seeking possession. 15. On the contrary the defendant contended her mother Smt.Puttamma was inducted in the suit property 60 years ago and this defendant spent her childhood there, and even after marriage she came and stayed in suit house till now by obtaining ration card, voter card and electricity connection from the period of her mother. At no point of time either plaintiff or his vendors were asked her to vacate the suit house. And at no point of time the plaintiff approached her seeking to surrender the suit house, and now with an intention to sell the suit property for higher rate by the vendors of plaintiff, executed the sham document in favour of plaintiff and to evict the defendant. 16. In order to establish the case the plaintiff got examined himself as Pw1 and relied as many as 31 documents. Wherein ExP1 is the sale deed dated 10-12-2015, ExP2 is the Will dated 8-3-1965., ExP3 is the death certificate of Madeshaiah., ExP4 is the office copy of notice dated 28-3- 2016 sent by defendant to M.N Suresh and this plaintiff. ExP6 is the E Khata standing in the name of plaintiff, which discloses the house is in worthy condition for accommodation. ExP7 and P8 are the form no.3, ExP9 is the endorsement issued by Chief Officer, Town Municipality Kollegala, based on the counsil’s decision no;14/2020. EXP10 and 11 are the self declaration list and tax paid receipt, ExP12 to 16 are standing in the name of plaintiff, ExP17 is the tax paid receipt standing in the name of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 Madeshaiah. ExP18 is the intimation letter dated 30-4- 1983, the ExP19 is the power of attorney executed by Rekha to her mother, ExP20 is form no;15, ExP21 E khata, ExP22 is Form no;3, ExP23 SAS form for properties, ExP24 is the tax paid receipt, ExP25 SAS form,ExP26 is the tax paid receipt, ExP27 e-khata of plaintiff, ExP28 is Encumbrance certificate, ExP29 is the order passed in HRC 2/2017.ExP30 is the decree passed in HRC 2/2017, ExP31 is the objection filed by defendant to the said petition. 17. During the cross examination the Pw1 admitted in HRC defendant had taken a defence that she is not the tenant under plaintiff and paying monthly rent of Rs 1000. It is denied where she also taken a contention that plaintiff is not the owner to the suit property. He deposed as per ExP2/ Will shows suit property acquired through Nanajundayya. He admitted at the time of execution of sale deed defendant was in possession of suit property. He volunteered on the request of the defendant, she was inducted in the suit property by his vendors. He admitted in ExP1 it is mentioned he was given possession of suit property, but he volunteered the defendant admitted to handover the possession 6 month prior to execution of sale deed and this he mentioned in the Legal notice/ExP5 dated 2-4-2016. He stated there was no impediment to mention in the sale deed that defendant would yet handover the possession on behalf of vendors. He denied ExP2 does not disclose as to how Nanjundayya acquired the suit property. He denied Nanjundayya had no right to execute the Will. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 He denied based on created Will filed false suit. He admitted in ExP6 it is mentioned it was a red oxide flooried house and purchased for personal use. He deposed ExP6 was filled by town Municipality. He admitted in the notice he mentioned house is in dilapidated condition and not worth for use. He deposed house is in suitable condition for one’s occupation. He admitted in Ex.P9 not mentioned khata transferred from the name of Nanjundayya to Madeshaiah. He deposed defendant occupied the suit house 6-7 month prior to purchase. He deposed he does not know prior to his name, in whose name electricity connection was standing. He depose he has document to show vendors were in possession of suit house. He deposed there is no voter card and ration card standing in the name of his vendors. He deposed that his vendors were used to visit the suit property. He admitted Madeshaiah was residing in Bangalore. He volunteered Madeshaiah was stayed in Kollegala as well as in Bangalore. He admitted ExP4 notice issued prior to filing HRC petition and he replied on 2-4- 2016. He admitted in HRC he claimed rent at Rs.1000 per month here sought Rs 2000 per month. He denied he has not paid proper court fee. He deposed based on ExP1 he was not given possession. 18. He admitted as per ExP2/Will suit property was self acquired property of the Nanjundayya. He volunteered he acquired suit property based on the RTC. He denied ExP2 has no connection with suit property. He deposed prior to purchase of suit property he did not enquire about Ex.P7 and P8 in town municipality. He deposed he has not - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 produced council order. He has not seen the documents pertaining to development fee. He admitted he has permitted the defendant to stay in suit property. He deposed prior to 6 months of purchase gave permission to stay. 19. In order to substantiate the contention taken in the written statement, the defendant got examined herself as Dw1 and relied as many as 7 documents. Wherein ExD1 is the petition copy in HRC 2/2017, ExD2 is the reply notice of plaintiff dated 2-4-2016, ExD3 is the electricity bill of mother Puttamma, of the year 2011, the ExD4 is the letter issued by Electricity Supply Ltd on seeking under right to information where stated electricity connection obtained on 25-8-1971 by her mother as per meter KL 2091.ExD5 is the electricity bill of the year 2016. ExD6 is the CC of Ration card and voter card. ExD7 is the deposition of plaintiff of the present case. 20. During the cross examination the Dw1 deposed she has not filed any separate suit for seeking cancellation of sale deed. She deposed in HRC she has not stated about ExP1 and ExP2. She deposed there is no any document standing in the name of her mother in respect of suit property. And her mother has not left any document in her name pertaining to suit property. There is no grant certificate standing in the name of herself and mother. There is no khata standing in her name from the year 1971. There is no document for giving possession of suit property by the Madeshaiah and his wife. She deposed to show she - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 is the daughter of Puttamma except ExD1 to 7 she has not produced any other documents. She deposed she has not stated in the notice that 55 years ago Madeshaiah has handed over the suit property by taking money from her mother. She deposed prior to filing this suit she has not sent notice to plaintiff or to vendor/Suresh. She deposed there is no document standing in the name of father in respect of suit property .And she has not asked Madeshaiah during his life time to execute the sale deed in respect of suit property. She deposed she does not know any Madeshaiah. She deposed she has not sent any notice to Madeshaiah to return the amount paid by her mother. There is no document to show her mother had paid money to Madeshaiah. She has not lodged any complaint for not repaying the money against Madeshaiah or Suresh. To show she is in possession of suit property from past 60 years except ExD1 to 7 she has not produced any other document. 21. She deposed she has not stated either in the written statement or in the ExP31 that her mother had constructed the house. She admitted usually in the name of owner’s, electricity connection will be taken. To show in the name of her mother electricity connection taken, she has not produced any document. She admitted in ExD4 there is over writings found and there is no initial is put for having did the correction. She deposed she had no impediment to obtain the document to show who has given application to get electricity connection under right to information. She admitted ExD6 ration card is cancelled. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 22. She deposed she married to Malavalli 30 years ago. She deposed she has not stated when she left Malavalli either in the written statement or in ExP31. To show her family members are residing in suit property except ExD1 to 7 she has not produced any document. She admitted as per the self information furnished, entries will be made in ration card, voter card and Adhar Card. She deposed she has not filed police compliant against Suresh and sisters for executing sale deed in favour of plaintiff by playing fraud. She deposed she had no impediment to make counter claim seeking cancellation of sale deed. When the question whether she has mentioned in written statement or ExP31 as to she is claiming she is in possession of suit property as a owner or permissive occupant, she deposed she mentioned by ownership she became in possession. She admitted for the first time she is telling she is the owner of a suit property. She deposed to establish her ownership either, sale deed, grant certificate or gift deed not produced . She denied in the reply notice plaintiff stated she by approaching Madevamma and children, had sought permission to reside in suit house as a permissive occupant and when they direct, she would handover the possession. She admitted it is a old house. She denied since it is a old house if somebody is in occupation it would remain in worthy condition therefore she was permitted to reside in the said house. She deposed the plaintiff never came to suit house prior to execution of sale deed. She denied plaintiff along with vendors came to suit house and - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 requested to surrender the possession and at that time she sought some time to look some other house. She denied even if she agreed to surrender now she is telling false before the court. She denied as plaintiff wanted immediate house he purchased suit property and also requested her to surrender. She deposed to show either from 55 years or from 60 years she is residing in the suit house except the documents produced she possess no other documents. She denied even if she is not in possession of suit house by creating ExD3 and 4 deposing false before the court. She deposed the building would fetch 5 to 6 thousand rent. She deposed suit property values more than 30 lakhs. She deposed she does not know there is a reference in the sale deed/ExP1 that Madeshaiah acquired through the Will executed by Nanjundayya. She deposed she does not know nobody from the family of Nanjundaiah questioned ExP2 /Will so far. She deposed she has not sought for cancellation of ExP2. 23. The Dw1 further deposed when plaintiff purchased suit property only, she came to know about him. She deposed to show except the Nanjundayya any other is having right over the suit property she has not produced any document. She deposed she went to file police complaint against Plaintiff and his vendor, but they have not received her complaint, and to that regard she has no endorsement. She deposed she has not challenged the khata standing in the name of plaintiff. She deposed she had no impediment to mention in the written statement when exactly either she or her mother occupied suit house. She admitted in HRC it is - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 not decided that the plaintiff is not the owner of suit property. She denied whatever the right and liability had towards vendors same is transferred to plaintiff after the sale. She denied if suit house let out for rent it would fetch Rs 2000 per month , therefore till she surrender of the house she is liable to pay loss incurred by the plaintiff. She denied she is in possession of suit property since 60 yrs or more. She denied she has not replied to the notice dated 12-6-2017. Which sent prior to filing HRC petition. She deposed she has not produced present ration card. She denied since she is residing in suit property as a permissive occupant under Madeshaiah she is bound to surrender the suit house to plaintiff. She denied except plaintiff no other is the owner of suit property. She denied she has not stated in the written statement that real estate people have deceived her, in the written statement. 24. During the course of argument the Learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that, ExP1 is not challenged by defendant and not sought counter claim in the suit. The defendant admitted the ownership of vendors of ExP1 and also of her permissive possession. Therefore question of either denial of title of vendors of plaintiff does not survive for consideration. And as per sec 115 of Indian Evidence Act defendant is estopped by conduct and estopped by record. Further argued the plaintiff proved the title, therefore the limitation for filing the suit reckoning only if the defendant set up adverse possession. As such either the Art 64 or 65 of the Limitation Act does not come in the way. And that either the vendors of ExP1 or any other blood - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 relative of them not challenged the legality or otherwise of ExP1 and P2. Therefore sought decree the suit. 25. Per contra the Learned counsel for defendant argued that possession is not delivered to plaintiff and there is no recital in the sale deed to take possession. So no such right is given by vendors and thus he cannot take possession from defendant. 26. Learned counsel defendant further argued, for the deed like Will no presumption can be drawn as 30 years old document. The Municipality does change the khata and council decision document not produced which stated in ExP18. Learned counsel for defendant further argued without proving Will title will not pass on Madeshaiah, and in turn to plaintiff. It is submitted when Nanjundaiah is died is not known and no death certificate is produced. Khata is not changed to the name of Madeshaiah based on the Will. The Will is a suspicious document so cannot grant declaration. It is submitted there is no evidence of witness regarding passing of consideration and how the plaintiff arranged the sale consideration amount there is no document. It is contended admittedly though possession is not handed over, in E khata showed the house in worthy condition and it is in the use of plaintiff by taking photo in front of the house. 27. It is further argued when, either the vendors of plaintiff or plaintiff approached defendant seeking possession date is not mentioned in the plaint and there is no reference about Will in Exp1. Vendors are not examined to prove, the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 Pw1 was given any right to seek possession. It is submitted since delivery is not made in the sale deed the same is void as per the sec 34 specific relief Act. It is stated possession has to be handed over by previous owner to plaintiff, previous ownership if admitted. Settled possession previous owner should transfer to plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to establish Permissive possession by the defendant. Therefore sought dismissal of the suit. 28. In the light of rival contentions urged by the counsel for the parties I have gone through the records. From the pleadings of the parties it emerges that there is no actual dispute that Madeshaiah was the absolute owner of suit property and defendant’s mother taken possession of suit property from Madeshaiah, as it is forthcoming from the notice sent by defendant to plaintiff and Suresh who is the vendor of plaintiff, dated 2-4-2016/ExP5. It is also not in dispute that said Madeshaiah died and left behind wife and children. It is also not in dispute that they sold the suit property to the plaintiff on 10-12-2015. 29. Further it is not in dispute that prior to filing this suit the defendant got issued a notice in the year 2016 to plaintiff and Suresh,to cancel the sale deed of plaintiff and the same is replied by plaintiff. It is also not in dispute at the time of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff the possession is with defendant and only symbolic possession was given to plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that plaintiff filed HRC 2/2017 which is dismissed as he failed to - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 establish land lord, tenant relationship which was not further assailed in the appeal. 30. The first contention of the defendant is that suit is hit by resjudicata. The suit is barred by limitation as the plaintiff did not act within the statutory period after the defendant’s denial of title. The suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC since the plaintiff did not file a declaration suit after the defendant issued a notice denying title. Thus it is to be seen whether suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable. 31.The learned counsel for defendant placed a reliance in this regard reported in 2011 (4) KCCR 3130; Where held order 2 rule 2 – Bar under–first suit for declaration of title and for relief of permanent injunction- suit was decreed partially declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner of six flats–plaintiff was not in possession-second suit for recovery of possession– Held, second suit is not hit by the provisions of order 2 rule 2 of CPC. 32. On the other hand the learned counsel for plaintiff relied on the decision reported in AIR (36) 1949 Patna 510 wherein it is held, decision confined to between landlord and tenant and question of title gone into incidentally- decision not to operate to resjudicata. Further it is pertinent to note in Ex.P29 the learned Trial Court observed in para 10 of the Judgment as under; “parties have to approach competent court of Civil Jurisdiction for declaration of title”. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 33.The defendant had issued a legal notice denying the plaintiff’s title prior to filing of HRC petition. The plaintiff’s choice to file an HRC petition for possession does not preclude him from later filing a suit for declaration and possession. It is worth to note the earlier HRC petition No.2/2017 filed by the plaintiff was for recovery of possession under Rent Control Act. The dismissal of that petition does not bar the present suit for declaration and possession under general civil law, as the cause of action and relief sought are distinct. 34. The supreme court in Ishwar Dutt vs Land acquisition collector (2005) 7 SCC 190 held that res-judicata applies only when the matter directly and substantially in issue in the former suit is the same as in the current suit. The supreme court in Deva Ram vs Ishwar Chand (1995)6 SCC 733 clarified that Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC does not bar subsequent suits for distinct and separate reliefs arising out of the same cause of action. In a decision relied by the plaintiff reported in AIR (36) 1949 Patna 358 held, earlier suit by the plaintiff has lessor to eject defendants on termination of tenancy- later suit on title and seeking to eject defendant as trespasses- later suit filed not barred. The HRC Petition pertaining to landlord tenant relations, while the present suit involves ownership and possession, making the bar under order 2 rue 2 inapplicable as clarified in the decision relied by the counsel for plaintiff . Therefore in view of principle laid down the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 35. The plaintiff has produced the sale deed, Will, E-Khatha standing in the name of Plaintiff, Form no;3 in the name of Mahadevamma/vendor, endorsement to the effect that khata changed to the name of Madeshiah from Nanjundayya on 5-4-1993,self declaration of property tax list standing in the name of Mahadevamma, Tax paid receipt standing in the name of plaintiff from 29-4-2019, Encumbrance certificate. E Khata standing in the name of plaintiff. Form no;3 standing in the name of plaintiff for the year 2009 to 2016 and form no;2 standing in the name of plaintiff as evidence of ownership. The ExP1/sale deed being a reg document, is prima facie evidence of ownership under sec 54 of Transfer of Property Act. The defendant has not challenged the validity of the sale deed by filing a suit for cancellation as required by law having sent notice to plaintiff and vendor Suresh as per Ex.P4. In a decision relied by the plaintiff reported in 2020 (1) Kar. LR 466 in between B.Ramsingh and another Vs. Parasuram Singh since dead his LRs. it is held, “a prayer for declaration of title if necessary only if denial of title by the defendant or challenged to the plaintiff’s title raises a cloud over a person's title when some apparent defect in his title to a property or when some prima-facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. In the present case, the defendant denied casually in the written statement that the sale deed of the plaintiff is created one,no specific denial is made to that effect as mandated under Order VI Rule 4 of CPC. The defendant not raised any cloud or shown any apparent defect on the title of the plaintiff. Further the - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 defendant contended there is no proof as to payment of sale consideration as such it is sham document. But it is relevant to note consideration is not the criteria for ascertaining sale deed, even the part sale consideration is permitted under law. 36. The defendant claims settled possession based on long term residence i.e., from 1971 and utility documents. However possession without ownership or a lawful agreement does not confer any title. Mere possession, even for an extended period, does not override the lawful ownership of the plaintiff unless adverse possession is pleaded and proved. The defendant claim of possession is not backed by a plea of adverse possession or evidence satisfying the criteria of hostile, open and continuous possession against the plaintiff’s or vendors title. 37.The plaintiff claims that his vendors have inducted the defendant six months ago in the suit property so as to keep the house in worthy condition. And it was informed him by his vendors regarding the possession is with the defendant, and on approaching the defendant by the plaintiff and vendors, she agreed to surrender the possession of the suit property whenever she called to do so but later she did not keep up her promise, which is forthcoming from the reply notice issued by plaintiff/ExP5 at undisputed point of time i.e three years prior to filing the present suit and one year prior to filing HRC petition. The defendant denied she never in possession as a permissive occupant on the other hand she stated her mother was in possession of suit house from - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 55 years ago and after her death she inherited the same. But court finds that defendant has not specifically stated what is the mode of her occupation. However during cross examination by putting suggestion to pw1 stated either vendor or he never approached the defendant and requested to surrender the possession of suit property, thereby the defendant admitted Madeshiah was the owner of suit property. 38. Further during cross-examination of Pw1 dated 13-09- 2023 the defendant unequivocally admitted stating pw1 permitted the defendant to occupy the suit property, the portion is extracted as under; “ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ dAiÀÄgÀªÀjUÉ zÁªÁ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è ¸Áé¢üãÀzÀ°ègÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj C£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ zÁªÁ ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß Rjâ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ 6 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁV PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.” 39. Apart from the discrepancies in the evidence of the defendants, the defendant herself admitted the ownership over the suit property by the plaintiff and after purchase the defendant with the permission of plaintiff continued to be in possession of suit property as a permissive occupant. Therefore decision relied by the defendant reported in 2004(1) KCCR 662, held whenever a party approaches the court for a relief based on the pleadings and issues, he has to prove his case. A suit has to be decided based on merits and demerits of the party who approaches the court. Weakness of the defendant cannot be considered as a trumph card for the plaintiff, not helpful to the defendant. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 40. The defendant on the contrary by issuing a legal notice ExD4 taken a another set of defence that her mother had purchased the suit property from Madeshiah by paying money. Thereby again she has admitted the Madeshiah was the owner of suit property. 41. Further to prove this stand she herself admitted there is no any document standing in the name of her mother in respect of suit property. And mother has not left any document in her name pertaining to suit property. There is no grant certificate standing in the name of herself and mother. There is no khata standing in her name from the year 1971. There is no document for giving possession of suit property by the Madeshiah and his wife. She deposed to show she is the daughter of Puttamma except ExD1 to 7 she has not produced any other documents. She deposed she has not stated in the notice that 55 years ago Madeshiah handed over the suit property by taking money from her mother. Thereby she disowned her own statement made in ExD4. The Dw1 deposed there is no document standing in the name of father in respect of suit property. And she has not asked Madeshiah during his life time to execute the sale deed in respect of suit property. She deposed she does not know any Madeshiah. She deposed she has not sent any notice seeking to repay the amount paid by her mother. There is no document to show her mother had paid money to Madeshiah. She has not lodged any complaint for not repaying the money against Madeshiah or Suresh. To show she is in possession of suit property from past 60 years except ExD3 to D7 i.e - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 electricity bill standing in the name of Puttamma, information received under right to information, Electricity bill, ration card and voter card, she has not produced any other documents. She clearly admitted in her evidence she has no single document to show her mother paid any amount to Madeshiah and she has not asked Madeshiah to execute the sale deed. Which indicates either her mother purchased the suit property nor she inherited the same, on the other hand as put suggestion to pw1 stated supra her possession in the suit property is a permissive occupation. 42. The defendant has further contended that Nanjundayya was not the owner of suit property. As, to show that suit property is the selfacquired property Nanjundaiah no document is produced. There is no Khata standing in the name of Nanjundiah. And it is argued by the counsel for defendant that Ex.P18 denotes he is a tenant and paid yearly rent. 43. But this court finds Nanjundayya’s name is mentioned in ExP18 under the column of Owner. The said fact is not denied. Which shows yearly revenue is fixed and paid by Nanjundaiah. Even if Ex.P18 does not help the plaintiff, what better document produced by defendant to show Nanjundayya is not the original owner, or he was only a tenant is to be been seen. Except the Ex.D3 to 7 no other documents produced. The Ex.D3 to 7 does not prove the ownership of the defendant. 44. The learned counsel for defendant further argued that khata changed from the name of Madeshiah to - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 Nanjundaiah based on the decision of councilor and the copy of counsilor’s order not produced. But this court finds the Pw1 during the course of cross examination admitted to show except Nanjundayya, any other is having right over the suit property she has not produced any document. Further in the cross examination Dw1 gave go by to that set of defence stating she does not know in the ExP1 it is recited Madeshayya acquired suit property through the Will executed by Nanjundayya, She does not know to that regard original Will is produced. She deposed she does not know nobody questioned from the family of Nanjundayya the genuinity of ExP2. And she stated she does not enquire the family members of Nanjundayya even after production of original Will before the court by the plaintiff as to the authenticity. She denied as per ExP2 suit properties, it was the self acquired property of Nanjundayya. She stated she has not approached and sought any of the authority to cancel the Will. 45. It is relevant to mention in the ExP1 there is a reference as to how Madeshiah had acquired the suit property. It is specifically recited in the Sale deed that Madeshiah acquired the suit property through Will executed by Nanjundayya. Ex.P2 shows Mallikarjunayya’s son Nanjundayya executed a Will in favour of N.M Madeshayya. Where it is forthcoming that Madeshaiah is none other than the own son of N,M Nanjundayya and Madeshaiah was given in adoption to Madayya. The ExP2 is a thirty years old document. The defendant has not objected while marking the Will as ExP2. This defendant is a totally third party to the suit property, so she has no locus - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 standi to question or dispute the ownership. In this regard even the counsel for plaintiff relied on the decision reported in AIR 2007 ALLAHABAD 163 in between Smt. Kailasho and Anr Vs Smt.Anandi Devi and Ors. Held Sec 31–suit for cancellation of sale deed-Locus standi – Plaintiff was step daughter of vendor – she could only succeed to party on death of vendor – plaintiff having no title or nay interest under se.31 to challenge sale deed, enquiry whether the sale deed was sham transaction and whether any sale consideration was paid was not relevant – person having no interest in property had no locus standi to challenge sale. The principle laid down is applicable to this case. 46. Further in the written statement there is no specific denial of genuinity of Will. In that circumstances benefit of sec 90 of Indian evidence Act can be extended. Which is well supported in the citation relied by the counsel for the plaintiff reported in 2015(4) KCCR SN 464 .Where it is h held Succession Act 1925 -Sec 63 Will proof benefit of Sec.90, Evidence At, Availability – registered will found to be thirty years old – no suspicious circumstances proved except denying genuineness of Will. Order 8 Rule 5 of CPC states that allegations in plaint are considered admitted unless specifically denied in the defendants written statement. The defendant of this case only contended in the written statement that she do not admit the Madeshiah acquired suit property under registered Will. And she merely denied entire plaint averments of the plaintiff. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 47. When she admitted that her mother was inducted by Madeshiah who is the owner of the suit property she is estopped from denying the ownership at this stage. When vendors title is admitted in the notice as well as in the evidence, the question of proving the genuinity of the Will does not warrants. 48. Now when she is not disputing the ownership of suit property by Madeshiah on the other hand failed to establish her title to the suit property, mere long possession would not aid her in protecting her possession over the suit property. The learned Counsel for the defendant argued that the vendor of the plaintiff is not examined to prove that they have inducted the defendant in the suit schedule property as a permissive occupant. But it is seen in the case relied by the plaintiff reported in 2017 Chatisgarh 106 held, Sec.34 declaration of title and injunction states where execution of the sale deed had not been denied by the executor, and the sale deed was registered it is not necessary to call an attesting witness in the instant case, the defendant third party to sale deed questioned the authenticity of execution and attestation of the document causing obstruction to way of house of plaintiff by raising a wall. Considering the due execution and attestation of document in favour of the plaintiff the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff was rightly decreed. The defendant has admitted Madeshaiah was the owner of the suit schedule property and she taken the possession from the said Madeshaiah. As such examining the vendors of plaintiff not warranted. She has not denied the execution of - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, principle laid down is squarely applicable to the case of plaintiff. 49.The Dw1 deposed only when plaintiff purchased the suit property she came to know about him. She deposed to show except the Nanjundayya any other is having right over the suit property she has not produced any document. 50. It is not in dispute that defendant is in possession of suit property from 2011 and obtained electricity connection. The learned counsel for plaintiff highlighted and argued some over writings in ExD4 which disprove the document which she relied. But on careful perusal of said document court finds that, after correction of the letters initial was put under the letters. Further it is relevant to note the contents should be read in whole and not by pick and chose method. On careful going through the further sentence of the alleged overwriting it indicates it is just a mistake but not deliberate overwriting, the portion is extracted as under; “ CzÀPÉÌ C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV vÁªÀÅ PÉýgÀĪÀ DgïDgï £ÀA. PÉ J¯ï 2091 gÀ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÁܪÀgÀªÀÅ ¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°èzÀÄÝ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.08.1971 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.” 51. The said document does not creates any suspicious as it corroborates with ExD3. On looking at the cross examination of Dw1 where she unequivocally admitted she has no document showing her mother purchased the petition schedule property. On the other hand by putting suggestion to Pw1 admitted her permissive possession. And it is not the case of the defendant that she is in - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 peaceful possession of suit property to the knowledge of vendor peacefully without interruption and thereby perfected title by adverse possession. 52. Here the plaintiff has produced Ex.P2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 28 to show the Madeshiah was the owner of suit property. He died leaving behind his wife and children, and they sold the suit property to plaintiff. Subsequent to sale he got changed the khata into his name and he is paying property tax to concerned department. When khata was transferred in the name of plaintiff from Mahadevamma and her children, the defendant has not objected. The defendant has not produced single piece of paper for paying tax to the suit property from the year 1971 till this day. On the other hand it is seen the vendor of plaintiff paid tax to the suit property as per Ex.P7, 8,10,11,15,16 and 17. Subsequent to purchase the plaintiff paid tax as per Ex.P22,23,24,25 and 26 till this day. 53. The plaintiff has proved the ownership through the reg sale deed of 2015. The defendant admitted in cross examination that no documents exists to prove her mother paid money/sale consideration to the plaintiff’s vendor. On the other hand the production of reg sale deed by plaintiff holds greater evidentiary value than oral claims or possession without proof of ownership. 54.The defendant’s claim of possession for 60 years is unsupported by any documentary evidence showing ownership or adverse possession. As per AIR 2011 Madras 192 in between Lakshmi & Ors Vs Karuppathal @ - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 Sadayammal & anr, relied by the counsel for plaintiff, permissive possession cannot ripen into ownership, and the defendant has failed to establish any hostile intent against the true owner. 55. The defendant’s claim is that since plaintiff admits possession is with defendant, without the possession sale deed executed is a sham document, which cannot be sought to cancellation. The Hon’ble Apex court in Hardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (2007)2 SCC 404 clarified that possession being retained by a third party does not render the sale deed is a sham document. The rights under the deed remain enforceable. A sale deed does not become invalid merely because possession is not handed over at the time of execution. The plaintiff has established ownership through a registered sale deed, which is valid unless proven otherwise. The recital of possession in the sale deed does not negate the plaintiff’s right to seek actual possession from the defendant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Das vs Davinder (2014)9 SCC 744 upheld the principle that a purchaser is entitled to seek possession from an occupier, even if possession was not delivered at the time of sale. The sale deed is not a sham document and the plaintiff is entitled to possession despite the defendant’s long term occupation. 56.The defendant deposed, she does not know other than Nanjundayya is any other person is the owner of suit property. Admittedly Nanjudayya’s siblings not disputed the Will. Unless and until his legal representatives raises voice - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 she gets no locus-standi to deny the title of the vendor. On the other hand Dw1 admitted the title of the vendor of plaintiff. It is not suggested to Pw1 that her mother succeeded the property from 60 years. Under what capacity Puttamma and defendant are in possession of suit property not elicited from the mouth of Pw1. It is suggested to Pw1 possession is not handed over. Thereby admitted the sale deed of plaintiff. 57. In the decision relied by the counsel for plaintiff reported in AIR 2011 Madras 192 in between Lakshmi & Ors Vs Karuppathal @ Sadayammal & anr, Held permissive possession in performance of agreement to sell. That it is oral sale to the defendant’s mother Puttamma. On the other hand the plaintiff acted upon the sale deed by changing khatha and paying tax. Since plaintiff produced reg document which is not denied by raising cloud that too by third party, mere seeking possession is enough. 58.The defendant’s claim that her mother purchased the suit schedule property is unsubstantiated as no documentary evidence has been produced. Mere oral assertions cannot override registered title documents. 59. Defendant claimed her mother was in the possession of suit property since 60 years and right of succession has been claimed. But only oral pleading no documentary evidence produced in the name of Puttamma except the voter card, ration card and electricity bill. Her mother Puttamma not initiated any case against vendor nor derived any title. Documentary evidence produced does not - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 establish the title either in the name of Puttamma nor in the name of defendant. On the contrary she taken a defence undisputed point of time that mother had purchased the property. During the course of cross examination denied the said defence taken in the notice. The contents of the notice binds on the defendant she cannot now over come the said mistake committed in notice or to withdraw the admission. 60. As per the suggestion put to Pw1 it is clear that defendant is in permissive possession and lawful possession is with the vendor of plaintiff. Though the possession not handed over under Ex.P1 the defendant admitted sale made to plaintiff by the vendor and possession is given to her. In case if she is not agreeing the sale made to plaintiff by the vendor course open to defendant claim cancellation of sale deed by counter claim under Order 8 Rule 6 of CPC. No such relief is claimed it’s a simple denial. The Sec.109 of the Transfer of Property Act states the transferee steps into the shoes of the transferor and is entitled to enforce all rights, including the right to possession. It states in case of vendor’s title admitted, statutory attornment automatically come into place and he gets right to seek possession. 61. In KK Dewan vs NDMC (2014) 4 SCC 542, the SC emphasized that a permissive occupant must vacate the property upon the owners demand. The plaintiff has successfully established ownership through valid title documents. The defendant’s claim of long term possession - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 without title is not sufficient to override the plaintiff’s ownership. The sale deeds recital regarding possession not negate the plaintiff’s right to seek possession from a permissive occupant. 62. In Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt ltd vs State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656, the SC held that possession alone does not confer ownership unless accompanied by a lawful title or adverse possession is established. 63. Based on the above findings, the plaintiff has established his title and right to recover possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant’s occupation is unauthorised and cannot be protected under the law. Therefore, I answer Issue No.1 to 3, and 8 in the Affirmative . 64. Issue No.4: The plaintiff contended since the date of said purchase the plaintiff become the lawful owner conversely the defendant’s possession is unlawful and therefore she is not only liable to deliver the vacant possession of the said property but also liable to pay the restricted damages to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2000/- p.m from the date of this suit till the period of vacating the same. The Pw1 during the course of cross examination admitted the suit house in good condition and his evidence is corroborated with E khata it shows “vasakke Yogya”. And Dw1 deposed during her cross examination the suit building would fetch Rs 5000 to Rs 6000 rent and suit property values more than 30 lakhs. The permissive occupant has no right to remain in possession once the - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 permission is withdrawn. In Jagdish Prasad vs Deputy Director of Consolidation. (1999) 6 SCC 388 it is held mesne profits can be awarded for unauthorized occupation based on market rent. The plaintiff evidence regarding the rental value of the property being Rs.2000/- per month is unrefuted rather admitted it would fetch more than Rs.5000/- to 6000/-. The claim for mesne profits at Rs.2000/- per month is reasonable and supported by the evidence. Therefore I answer issue No.4 in the Affirmative. 65. Issue no:5 The defendant’s claim is that since plaintiff admits possession is with defendant, without the possession sale deed executed is a sham document, which cannot be sought to cancellation. The Hon’ble Apex court in Hardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (2007)2 SCC 404 clarified that possession being retained by a third party does not render the sale deed is a sham document. The rights under the deed remain enforceable. A sale deed does not become invalid merely because possession is not handed over at the time of execution. The plaintiff has established ownership through a registered sale deed, which is valid unless proven otherwise. The recital of possession in the sale deed does not negate the plaintiff’s right to seek actual possession from the defendant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Das vs Davinder (2014)9 SCC 744 upheld the principle that a purchaser is entitled to seek possession from an occupier, even if possession was not delivered at the time of sale. Further the defendant contended there is no proof as to payment of sale consideration as such it is sham document. But it is - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 relevant to note consideration is not the criteria for ascertaining sale deed, even the part sale consideration is permitted under law.The sale deed is not a sham document and the plaintiff is entitled to possession despite the defendant’s long term occupation. Therefore I answer Issue no;5 in the Negative. 66. Issue No.6:The learned counsel for defendant argued, the defendant has denied the title of plaintiff at the earliest point of time by issuing a legal notice and plaintiff himself pleads in the plaint that his vendor had intimated about the possession is with defendant. When title denied within 3 years ought to have been filed suit as mandated under Art 58 of Limitation Act. But it is seen the plaintiff’s claim for possession is based on title derived from the reg sale deed dated 10-12-2015. The defendant has admitted that the plaintiff’s vendor was the real owner, thereby acknowledging the title chain. In cases where the defendant is a permissive occupant and has not pleaded adverse possession, the limitation period for recovery of possession does not apply. Furthermore, in Annamalai Ammal vs Valliammal (2014)10 SCC 712, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that recovery of possession based on ownership is maintainable without limitation unless adverse possession is specifically claimed and proved. The defendant admitted the vendors title. In a decision relied by the plaintiff 2010(2) Civil LJ 467 between B.Koosappa Vs.P.Veerappa @ Koosappa it is held, suit for possession of immovable properly based on title- adverse possession not claimed by the defendant- no limitation - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 applicable- claim of true owner can be defeated only if the person in possession pleads and proves that he had perfected his title by adverse possession. Pw1 stated the vendor used to visit the suit property. So no limitation runs when plaintiff established title. 67.The plaintiff herein sought recovery possession based on his title as such Art 65 of Limitation Act applicable and not Art 58 of Limitation Act. The plaintiff has 12 years to file a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest in it based on title. Art.27 of the Limitation Act of 1963 states that if a person fails to file a suit for possession of property within the specified time period, their right to that property is extinguished. This is an exception to the general principle of law of limitation. In both the angle if we analysed the suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation. Therefore I answer Issue No.6 in the Negative. 68. Issue No.7:The defendant has also raised a preliminary objection that the suit was not properly valued and that the court fee paid Under Sec 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act was insufficient as plaitniff has claimed damage at Rs.2,000/- PM. I have gone through the valuation slip and the relief sought of the schedule. The Sec.24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act mandates that the Court fee is to be computed based on the value of the property for suits involving recovery of possession. However, in claims involving damages or mesne profits relevant provision is Sec.7(1) which requires to plaintiff to specify the mesne - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 profit or damages and pay the Court fee on the amount claimed. The claim for damages of Rs.2000/- PM is not an independent relief but ancillary relief arising out of the main relief for possession. The plaintiff has stated that the damages are to be adjudicated and ascertained by the Court before the exact amount can be determined. Hon’ble High Courts have consistently held that in cases where the quantum of damages or mesne profits is dependent on adjudication the Court fee on such claims can be paid after determination. In the present case the plaintiff has valued his property and paid the appropriate Court fee u/s 24(a) of the Act. The claim for damages is contingent and would required evidence to ascertain the exact amount. Therefore, insisting on payment of Court fee at the time of the filing of the suit would be premature and unjust. The plaintiff is not required to pay court fee on the claim for damages at the time of filing the suit. The plaintiff may pay the Court fee on the damages after adjudication and determination of the quantum by the Court. Therefore objection raised by the defendant regarding non-payment of Court fee on the claim for damages is hereby overruled. Accordingly I answer Issue No.7 is answered in the Affirmative. 69.Issue No.9: In view of answering Issue No.1 to 8, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 The plaintiff is declared as absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant is directed to vacate and hand over the possession of suit property to the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of this judgment. The plaintiff is entitled for the damages at the rate of Rs.2,000/- PM if court fee is paid. The defendant shall pay the damages to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month from the date of suit till the delivery of possession. Draw decree accordingly. 9.3 Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff in relation to the suit schedule property cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal. Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14698 RFA No. 695 of 2025 10. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the appellant is granted four months from today time to quit, vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.