Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1429
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.
R. Gangamma S/o Late Shri R. Ranganna - Appellant
Versus
R.V. Someswaran S/o Late Shri Venugopal - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 2446 of 2024
Decided On : 19-08-2025
For the Appellant : Manian K.B.S.
For the Respondent: Giridhar S.V.
A sub-lessee is bound by a decree against the original lessee, regardless of prior participation in legal proceedings, and claims against lessees are enforceable against successors.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 111, 112, 116 - Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Lease agreements and their binding nature - The trial Court's decree not binding on plaintiff as a tenant who was not a party to prior proceedings, restrained defendants from eviction - Court held that a sub-lessee is bound by a decree obtained against the original lessee, irrespective of sub-lease existence; decrees against tenants are enforceable against successors. (Paras 12-20)
(B) Abuse of process of law - The suit contested by the plaintiff was found to be an abuse of process as both the original and sub-lease had expired, and no valid claim existed to challenge the decree. (Paras 20-21)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, having been a sub-lessee, asserted that the previous decree against original lessor was not binding as he wasn't a party to it. Defendants contended original lease expired, making the sub-lease void, and the trial Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, allowing him to continue possession.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court overturned the trial Court's decision, holding that decrees bind sub-lessees and finding no merit in plaintiff's claims.
Issues: (i) Whether the prior decree is binding on the plaintiff; (ii) Can an expired sub-lessee independently challenge a lessor's possession decree; (iii) Is the suit an abuse of law?
Ratio Decidendi: Decrees against a lessee bind sub-lessees claiming through them; both original and sub-lease had expired, and the plaintiff was without legal standing to obstruct the prior decree.
Result: Appeal allowed; trial Court's judgment set aside and plaintiff's suit dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against trial court's decree. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. lease and tenancy background established. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court’s analysis of binding decree. (Para 8 , 9 , 12) |
| 4. controversy over sub-lessee's rights. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. sub-lessee's rights contingent on main lease. (Para 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 6. establishment of the decree’s binding nature. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. abuse of process declared; judgment final. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.
1. The present appeal is preferred by defendant No.1 assailing the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2024 passed in O.S.No. 1959/2017 on the file of I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’ for short).
2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and (i) declared that the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2016 passed in O.S.No.3084/2013 on the file of the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is not binding on the plaintiff (2) restrained the defendants from causing interference or obstruction to the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule ‘B’property, until he is evicted under due process of law.
3. The suit is one for declaration that the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2016 passed in O.S.No. 3084/2013 on the file of V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is not binding on the plaintiff and further restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from schedule ‘B’ property under due process of law.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that schedule ‘A’property was originally owned and possessed by one Muniramaiah, who executed a registered lease of deed dated 26.08.1985 in favour of one M.N.Prabha. As per the lease deed, the lease was for a period of 21 years commencing from 01.01.1986 and expiring on 31.12.2006. The lessee, M.N.Prabha, was entitled to construct a RCC building at her cost and let out various portions to tenants of her choice. Clause 23 provided that, upon expiry of the lease and on handing over possession of the building, the lessee shall attorn her tenancy in favour of the lessor and reimburse the lessor all the advance or deposit that might have been received from such tenants.
5. M.N.Prabha constructed a commercial complex comprising ground and three upper floors and let out various portions to different tenants. On expiry of the lease, the tenants, including the plaintiff, would become tenants directly under Muniramaiah. It is stated that after demise of M.N.Prabha rent was paid to her husband M.J.Narayansa (defendant No.2). Muniramaiah died leaving a Will in favour of his daughter R.Gangamma (defendant No.1), who thereafter instituted O.S.3084/2013 against defendants No. 2 to 6 and others for possession. The said suit was decreed on 08.09.2016. It is stated that, defendants 6 and 7 who were arrayed in the said suit were namely Siddesh and Nagendra, were shown as proprietors of Sairam Enterprises and as occupants of the ground floor. It is stated by the plaintiff that Siddesh and Nagendra do not exist and that he himself has been a tenant of the ground floor since 1989. Defendant No.1, by arraying non-existent persons as parties, obtained a decree for ejectment behind the plaintiff’s back and is attempting to execute it. It is asserted by the plaintiff that he cannot be dispossessed from ‘B’ schedule property except in due process of law.
6. Defendant No.1 (Gangamma), in her written statement, denied the plaint averments and contended that the father of defendant No.1 was the absolute owner and in possession of suit schedule ‘A’ property. Muniramaiah-father of defendant No.1 executed a registered Will in favour of defendant No.1, by virtue of which she succeeded to the property as its absolute owner. It is admitted that M.N.Prabha had taken the property on a registered lease deed dated 26.08.1985 from Muniramaiah for a period of 21 years, subject to certain terms and conditions. Defendant
