- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2829 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. PETER SANTOSH FRANCIS SON OF LATE R. FRANCIS AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.28 11TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, 4TH C BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 034. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VISHRUTH .C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. SALOME FRANCIS W/O LATE R. FRANCIS AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS 2. MR. J.A.M. SELVAM S/O LATE R. FRANCIS AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 3. MRS. MARY JOSEPHINE SUMITHRA D/O LATE R. FRANCIS AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R1 AND R3 ARE RESIDING IN MUNICIPAL NO.5 R2 RESIDING IN MUNICIPAL NO.2/3 SITUATED AT 'L', NO. 7TH STREET ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 025. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 4. MRS. MARY SABITHA D/O LATE R. FRANCIS AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT 10, L NO. 7TH STREET ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 025. 5. MRS. MARY SUGANTHI D/O. LATE R. FRANCIS AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT IN MUNICIPAL NO.17 SITUATED AT PUSHPAVENI LAYOUT MARUTHI NAGAR, KAIKONDRANAHALLI SARJAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 035. 6. MARIA THOMAS SAMPATHRAJ S/O. LATE R. FRANCIS AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING IN A PORTION OF NO.28 11TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, 4TH 'C' BLOCK KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS RFA IS FILED U/S. 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.11.2025, PASSED IN OS NO. 25898/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned Regular First Appeal is by the defendant directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2025 passed on the file of the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.25898/2022, wherein the counter claim filed by defendant No.1 was allowed thereby directing the appellant herein to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule ‘A’ property. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to the counter claim. 3. Facts leading to the case are as under; The defendant had instituted a suit in O.S.No.25898/2022 seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and for a declaration that the Settlement Deed dated 21.02.2000 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 and the Gift Deed dated 03.09.2001 executed by defendant No.1–mother in favour of defendant No.6 are null and void and not binding on his alleged share. He also sought the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from alienating the suit schedule properties. The present plaintiff, who was arrayed as defendant No.1 in the said partition suit, entered appearance, contested the claim, and filed a counter claim seeking recovery of possession of Schedule ‘A’ property. Simultaneously, defendant No.1 also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. 4. The Trial Court, by a considered order, allowed the application filed by defendant No.1 and rejected the plaint in O.S.No.25898/2022. However, the counter claim filed by the present plaintiff seeking recovery of possession was retained for adjudication. In response to the counter claim, the original plaintiff in the suit (arrayed as defendant in the counter claim) filed a written - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 statement and, for the first time, set up a plea of tenancy under his mother and produced certain rent receipts in support thereof. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the rent receipts were concocted, rejected the plea of tenancy, allowed the counter claim, and directed the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the Schedule ‘A’ property. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed on the counter claim, the defendant has preferred the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant– defendant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that the rent receipts produced on record clearly establish a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and his mother. It is further contended that the decree directing immediate delivery of vacant possession is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 disproportionate and contrary to principles of equity and natural justice. Learned counsel also submitted that the plaintiff in the counter claim is a 95-year-old lady who has undergone cardiac stent surgery and is under the influence and control of plaintiff No.2–sister, an Architect by profession, and that the counter claim is not a voluntary act of the mother but is instituted at the behest of plaintiff No.2. It is further argued that the appellant is presently unemployed since March 2024 and that the Trial Court, without considering the hardship likely to be caused, has mechanically ordered eviction, warranting interference by this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff–mother, placing reliance on the material on record, contended that the appellant is a qualified MBA graduate who was employed as a Human Resources professional with Kyndryl Solutions, owns residential properties including a three-bedroom flat, and has sufficient means to secure alternative accommodation. It - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 is further contended that the appellant is unlawfully squatting over the suit schedule property by taking undue advantage of the advanced age of plaintiff No.1 and that the Trial Court, on proper appreciation of evidence, has rightly granted the relief sought in the counter claim. 8. Though the parties were advised to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement, the appellant sought as much as 25 months’ time to vacate the premises. In view of the same, this Court proceeded to hear the matter. Learned counsel on both sides have been heard at length. This Court has independently examined the pleadings, carefully scrutinised the oral and documentary evidence on record, and assessed the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court. 9. In the light of the rival contentions urged, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the pleadings in the plaint - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 filed by the appellant in O.S.No.25898/2022 bind him and that the subsequent plea of tenancy raised in the written statement to the counter claim is an afterthought? (ii) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the plea of tenancy by holding that the rent receipts produced are concocted? (iii) Whether the decree passed on the counter claim directing delivery of vacant possession calls for interference by this Court? (iv) What order? Findings on point Nos.(i) to (iii):- 10 The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Plaintiff No.1 is the mother of the defendant in the counter claim, while plaintiff No.2 is the sibling of the defendant. The defendant in the counter claim had, in the first instance, approached the Civil Court by instituting O.S.No.25898/2022 seeking the relief of partition and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 separate possession. In the said partition suit, the defendant, who figured as the plaintiff therein, made specific and unequivocal pleadings with regard to the nature and character of the suit properties. He categorically asserted that the suit schedule ‘A’ property stood exclusively allotted to defendant No.1, namely his mother, whereas the suit schedule ‘B’ property was pleaded to be ancestral in nature, having been acquired by defendant No.1 from her late father. 11. These pleadings were not casual or incidental assertions but formed the very foundation of the claim for partition and declaration sought in the earlier suit. The averments clearly reflect the stand taken by the defendant at the threshold, admitting exclusive ownership of plaintiff No.1 in respect of Schedule ‘A’ property, while asserting joint family rights only in respect of Schedule ‘B’ property. The said pleadings assume significance, inasmuch as they emanate from the defendant himself, are made - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 consciously, and were relied upon by him to seek substantive reliefs from the Court. 12. In the above factual and legal backdrop, this Court deems it appropriate and necessary to extract paragraph Nos.10 to 16 of the plaint in O.S.No.25898/2022, as the said averments have a direct bearing on the adjudication of the issues arising in the present appeal. Accordingly, paragraph Nos.10 to 16 of the plaint are extracted hereunder for ready reference: "10. The plaintiff humbly submits that during the lifetime of his father, the suit schedule 'A' property was allotted to the First Defendant, who is the Plaintiff mother. The Suit Schedule 'B' Property is an Ancestral Property acquired by the First Defendant from her father Late J.A.Bernard. The Suit Schedule 'C' Property was jointly purchased by my Late Father and the First Defendant and all the Original Documents in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties are with the First and Second Defendants. 11. The plaintiff humbly submits that the Suit Schedule 'A' Property was not acquired only by the First Defendant but with the active physical and financial contribution of my father's earning and the above property was acquired. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 12. The plaintiff humbly submits that the Suit Schedule 'B' Property as stated supra is an Ancestral Property and Suit Schedule 'C' Property was jointly purchased by my Late father and the First Defendant. 13. The plaintiff humbly submits that in view of the above submission, the Suit Schedule 'A', 'B' & 'C' Properties are undivided Joint Family Properties which are in possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff and the Defendants. 14. The plaintiff humbly submits that due to the hard work, financial contribution and other miscellaneous expenses incurred in the upkeep of the property the Plaintiff has been contributing and it is very much evident that the First and the Second Defendant are mere spectators and enjoying at the expense of the labour of the plaintiff. 15. The plaintiff humbly submits that the First Defendant took voluntary retirement in the year 1989 and as stated supra, the Plaintiff father died in 1999. The entire concept of maintaining the Suit Schedule Properties was vested with the Plaintiff's father and after his death, the plaintiff and the Sixth Defendant have been jointly contributing and taking care of the Suit Schedule Properties. It is in this context the Suit Schedule Property are undivided Joint Family Properties and the plaintiff has a definite share over the same. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 16. The plaintiff humbly submits that after the retirement of the First Defendant, she has been residing in the residence of the Second Defendant and the First Defendant is under the control of the Second Defendant." (emphasis supplied) 13. Upon a comprehensive examination of the pleadings in O.S.No.25898/2022, this Court finds that the relationship between the parties is admitted and undisputed. The defendant in the present counter claim had instituted the said suit seeking partition and separate possession, wherein his mother was arrayed as defendant No.1 and his siblings as defendant Nos.2 to 6. The gist of the plaint in the partition suit was a clear assertion of co- ownership and joint family rights. The defendant, as plaintiff therein, pleaded that the suit schedule properties were either ancestral in nature or were acquired or jointly acquired and that defendant No.1 had been misled into executing the Settlement Deed and Gift Deeds impugned therein. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 14. Significantly, on a close and careful reading of the entire plaint, this Court finds that nowhere has the defendant, who was the plaintiff in the partition suit, pleaded that he was in possession of the suit schedule ‘A’ property as a tenant under his mother, nor has he averred that his possession was traceable to any lease or tenancy arrangement. On the contrary, the entire foundation of the plaint rests on assertions of ownership, joint possession, and entitlement to partition. These pleadings unequivocally disclose the nature of possession claimed by the defendant and constitute clear admissions as to his status and rights over the property. 15. It is well settled that pleadings are binding on the parties and a litigant cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by taking mutually destructive and inconsistent stands. Having asserted ownership and joint possession in the plaint, the defendant is estopped from subsequently contending that his possession is that of a tenant. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 16. The plea of tenancy has been introduced for the first time only after the rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.25898/2022, which has attained finality. This plea has been set up solely as a defence to the counter claim filed by the mother seeking recovery of possession. The timing, manner, and circumstances under which this plea is raised unmistakably indicate that it is a belated and contrived plea, intended only to obstruct and defeat the lawful claim of the mother to recover possession of her property. 17. The extracted pleadings in the partition suit must be examined in the context of Sections 17, 18, 21, and 22 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The averments made by the defendant in the partition suit, while he was the plaintiff therein, constitute clear and categorical admissions regarding the nature of the property and the character of his possession. Such admissions are substantive in nature and bind the maker thereof. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam @ Brijram and Others1 has unequivocally held that admissions made in pleadings are admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions, and are fully binding on the parties unless withdrawn or amended in accordance with law. In the present case, the defendant neither sought nor obtained any amendment of the pleadings in the partition suit. Consequently, those admissions continue to bind him, and he cannot be permitted to resile therefrom by setting up a diametrically opposite plea in the counter claim proceedings. 19. In the absence of any plea of tenancy at the inception and in view of the clear and unambiguous assertions of ownership and joint possession in the earlier pleadings, the defendant is legally precluded from raising a contradictory plea of tenancy for the first time in the written statement filed to the counter claim. Such a plea is 1 (1974)1 SCC 242 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 not only inconsistent but strikes at the root of judicial discipline and fairness in pleadings. 20. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Trial Court on the counter claim and the decree passed thereon are in strict conformity with law. The rent receipts relied upon by the defendant are devoid of any probative value, having been brought into existence only after the rejection of the plaint and its affirmation by this Court. Once these documents are excluded from consideration, there remains no material whatsoever to establish that the defendant was inducted as a tenant by his mother, plaintiff No.1, in respect of the suit schedule ‘A’ property. 21. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Point Nos.(i) to (iii) are answered in the Negative. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6338 RFA No. 2829 of 2025 22. Point No.(iv):- In view of the findings recorded on point Nos.(i) to (iii), this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19