The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:25188 RFA No. 1866 of 2019 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1866 OF 2019 (POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ELIZABETH RANI D/O LATE GNANAMANI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 2. SMT. FATHIMA MARY D/O LATE GNANAMANI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.18, 1ST CROSS, NAGAWARA MAIN ROAD CROSS, NEAR 7TH DAY SCHOOL, K.G.HALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 045. (BY SMT. BHARATHI.M., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:
Legal Reasoning
1. SMT. DAISY PINTO W/O LATE LEO PINTO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. MASTER DANIEL PINTO (MINOR), S/O LATE LEO PINTO, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SMT. DAISY PINTO. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25188 RFA No. 1866 of 2019 HC-KAR BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.21/B, 'B' TYPE QUARTERS, ROBERTSON ROAD, CLEVELAND TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005. (BY SRI. ELANGOVAN.J.D., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Smt.Bharathi.M., counsel for the appellants and Sri. Elangovan, J.D., counsel for the respondents, have appeared in person. 2. This is an appeal from the Court of LXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-75). 3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The plaint averments are these: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25188 RFA No. 1866 of 2019 HC-KAR The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property purchased from the late Smt.Margaret, under a registered sale deed dated 30.01.2004 for a valuable consideration. At the time of the purchase, one Smt.Gnanamani was in possession as a tenant. The plaintiff and his vendor informed the tenant about the sale of the property and requested her to vacate and hand over possession of the property to the plaintiff. However, she did not vacate. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file H.R.C Petition in No.10085/2005, and the same was allowed. As against the said order, a revision petition was filed before this Court in
Decision
H.R.R.P.No.120/2008 and the same was disposed of, observing that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant; however, it was opined that the plaintiff is at a liberty to file a suit for possession based on title. Contending that Gnanamani and her daughters have no right, title and interest over the suit property, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of Ejectment and to pay damages of Rs.500/- per day. After service of the suit summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed a written statement - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25188 RFA No. 1866 of 2019 HC-KAR and denied the plaint averments. They denied the jurial relationship of landlord and tenant. They contended that Gnanamani was put in possession of the suit property under a General Power of Attorney dated 05.06.1980 and an Agreement for Sale dated 05.06.1980, and an affidavit executed by the owner of the suit property. The owner has received the entire sale consideration. Based on these documents, Gnanamani was in possession as an owner, and after her death, her daughters, i.e., defendants, are in possession of the suit property. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues, parties led evidence and documents were exhibited. The Trial Court vide Judgment dated 23.04.2019 decreed the suit. Hence, the defendants have filed the present appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. 5. Smt.Bharathi.M., counsel submits that the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is contrary to law and opposed to the oral and documentary evidence on record. Next, she submits that Smt.Gnanamma was put in possession of the suit property under a General Power of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25188 RFA No. 1866 of 2019 HC-KAR Attorney dated 05.06.1980 and an agreement for sale dated 05.06.1980. A further submission is made that the mother, Smt.Gnanamma was in possession of the property, and there was no disturbance by anybody for over 45 years. It is contended that the land was vacant land and Smt.Gnanamani put up construction and continued to be in possession of the constructed property. Counsel vehemently contended that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants, and there is a serious dispute regarding title, and the Trial Court ought to have framed an issue regarding the title of the property before deciding other issues. It is also submitted that the defendants have a superior title. Lastly, she submits that viewed from any angle, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is untenable and the same is liable to be set aside. Counsel, therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25188 RFA No. 1866 of 2019 HC-KAR 6. Sri.Elangovan.J.D., counsel for the respondents justified the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. He submits that the appellants have not made any grounds to allow the appeal. Counsel, therefore, submits that the appeal may be dismissed. 7. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers and the records with care. 8. The short point that requires consideration is whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court requires interference. 9. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to the relief of possession based on title. This is an interesting case of squatters. Suffice it to note that Leo Pinto purchased the property from Mrs.Margaret under a registered sale deed dated 30.01.2004. Before the Trial Court, the defendants did not dispute the same. The Trial Court extenso, referred to the material on record and justified in concluding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property in question. The defendants contended that they had a better - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25188 RFA No. 1866 of 2019 HC-KAR title. This contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the plaintiff has a registered deed of sale in his favor. Under the rule of priority, the subsequent registered deed will prevail over the prior unregistered deed. Ex.P.3 is the Sale Deed, Ex.D.1 is the Agreement for Sale and Ex.D.2 is the General Power of Attorney. There is nothing on record to show that the mother Gnanamani had taken steps to get the sale deed. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the defendants have miserably failed to prove that they are the owners in possession of the property. 10. Lastly, Counsel Smt.Bharathi.M., in presenting her arguments, vehemently contended that the defendants have owned the property adversely to the interest of the plaintiff for more than twelve years. Hence, they may be declared as owners by way of adverse possession. This contention is satisfactorily hopeless for the simple reason that the defendants are claiming ownership over the suit property, hence, they cannot put forth the defence of adverse possession, which too in the plaintiff's suit. To conclude, I can say only this much that the plaintiff is justified in initiating a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25188 RFA No. 1866 of 2019 HC-KAR civil action to evict a squatters. I may venture to say that this is the right time to evict squatters. I find no grounds to interfere with the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected. 11. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is rejected. Because of the dismissal of the appeal, interim order if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory application if any are disposed of. TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE