IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. Srishananda, J.
Smt Karline, W/O Late Devaraj - Petitioner
Versus
Smt Manjula R – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 46 of 2019 (SC)
Decided On : 10-11-2025
ORDER :
V. Srishananda, J.
1. Heard Smt. Veena Hegde for Sri. M.G. Raghavendra, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent.
2. Defendant in S.C. No.15184/2016 is the respondent is the revision petitioner challenging the decree of ejectment passed in the said suit.
3. Operative portion of the Trial Court judgment reads as under:
"Suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs.
Hereby directed the defendant to quit and delivery of the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff within two months, from the date of the order.
Hereby directed the defendant to pay the arrears of rent Rs.32,750/- to the plaintiff within one month and the plaintiff is also entitled to recovery of the rent of Rs.3,000/- p.m., from the defendant until delivery of the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises."
4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:
4.1 Plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment contending that she is the absolute owner of the following property (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property')
"All the piece and parcel of the property bearing r/o. Door No.279, near seventh day church, Panjappa line, Dodannanagar, Kavalbyrasandra, R.T.Nagar Post, Bangalore-560 032. Consisting two bed room, one hall one kitchen and separate toilet and bounded on :
| Direction | Description |
|---|---|
| East | Ten feet passage |
| West | Plaintiff Property |
| North | Plaintiff Property |
| South | Church Property |
3.2 She contended that defendant is a tenant in the scheduled property on a monthly rent of Rs.2,750/- as per the agreement dated 01.04.2012 with an advance sum of Rs.25,000/-.
3.3 It is further contented that defendants did not pay the monthly rent to the plaintiff since August 2014 and plaintiff wanted to demolish the existing structure and construct a new building and therefore, tenancy of the defendant was terminated by issuing the notice on 11.01.2016.
3.4 Though there is a proper service of notice, there was no compliance to the callings of notice nor there was any reply. Therefore suit came to be filed.
3.5 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement contending that suit is not maintainable and plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands.
3.6 It is further contented that plaintiff has suppressed the actualities and filed a suit with mala fide and fraudulent intention to harass the defendant.
3.7 Further defendant denied that plaintiff is the owner of the property nor there was any rent agreement and there was no security deposit of Rs.25,000/- paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
3.8 Defendant also maintained that the property earlier belonged to Sri. M. Jesurathnam, son of Moses, who purchased the Site bearing No.27/1A in part of Sy.No.27 situated at Kavalbyrasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, measuring 144 feet x 130 feet from from its earlier owner Thammanna through a registered sale deed.
3.9 It is also contented by the defendant that during the lifetime of Jesurathnam, he had sold major portion of the property and remaining portion of the property was measuring 67 feet x 7 feet which was transferred in the name of brother's daughter namely Ms. Roselyn on 06.03.1988 through Release Deed.
3.10 It is further contented that after death of Jesurathnam, Roselyn got the khata in her name in the year 2008 and she was enjoying the property as an absolute owner from the year 2008 to 2013.
3.11 Jesurathnam had given a portion of house property to the defendant by lease on rent basis from 1971 to 2013 measuring 62 feet x 30 feet in the year 2013 and said Roselyn for her financial necessities, sold the lease property to the defendant and same was purchased by the defendant through registered sale deed dated 02.07.2013 and got the revenue entries transferred onto the name and paying the taxes to the concerned authority.
3.12 Defendant further contended that Schedule property bearing No.27/1A in Sy.No.27 Door No.283 measuring 32'x30', Plainti


The court established that mere denial of landlord-tenant relationship by the defendant, without supporting evidence, does not invalidate the plaintiff's claim to ownership and the tenancy rights.
A tenant denying a landlord's ownership must vacate the property and pursue separate legal action to establish title, reinforcing the court's ruling that the ejectment suit was valid.
The court affirmed that a tenant must vacate premises and establish rights after denying the landlord-tenant relationship, reinforcing the importance of valid tenancy evidence in ejectment suits.
A tenant cannot contest a claimed ownership of a property without vacating it first, establishing a need for civil procedure to resolve ownership disputes.
Tenants failed to provide sufficient evidence to contest ownership and tenancy claims, leading to dismissal of revision petitions.
The court affirmed that ownership claims must be supported by documentary evidence, and the principle of preponderance of probability governs determinations of title and tenancy.
The court affirmed the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship post the landlord's death, emphasizing automatic tenancy transfer to legal heirs and the implications of unpaid rent in ejectment su....
Ownership must be established through substantial evidence; mere possession and prior admissions are insufficient to prove title in property disputes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.