- 1 -
MSA No. 200083 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCL SECOND APPEAL NO. 200083 OF 2016 (RO-)
BETWEEN:
SRI.A PAPA REDDY S/O. ASHA REDDY
AGE 73 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE EX.MLA
R/O. H.NO. 12-1-1211 BEHIND
GUNJ KALYAN MANTAP, GUNJ AREA
RAICHUR-584101.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHAITANYAKUMAR C M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI.N BHANURAJ S/O. N.SOMANATHJIAND ORS
AGE:60 YEARS, OCC:ADVOCATE
R/O. L-150 H.NO. 1-11-55/59 (OLD)
1-11-337 (NEW) NIJALINGAPPA COLONY
RAICHUR-584101
2.
INDIAN BANK BRANCH RAICHUR
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
RAICHUR-584101
3.
SMT.KALPANA W/O LATE ASHOK
AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. FLAT. NO. 404, SUGAPPA TOWER
AZAD NAGAR, RAICHUR-584101
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI B PATIL, C/R-1
SRI.KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADV. FOR R2
NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH)
Digitally signed by
RAMESH
MATHAPATI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
MSA No. 200083 of 2016
THIS MSA FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF CPC.,
PRYAING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.06.2016 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.9/2015 BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAICHUR AND CONSEQUENTLY REMIT THE MATTER TO THE
LOWER APPELLATE COURT TO DECIDE FRESH IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.
The above appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule
1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to
as 'CPC'), by the appellant who was arrayed as defendant
No.3 before the Trial Court challenging the judgment and
decree dated 10.06.2016 passed in R.A.No.9/2015 by the
Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur.
The parties are referred to as per their rank
before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
- 3 -
4.
The plaintiff in O.S.No.305/2008 is a tenant in
respect of the suit property which was admittedly owned
by one Smt.Kalpana, who was arrayed as defendant No.2
in the said suit. It is further not disputed that the
defendant No.2 had obtained a loan from the defendant
No.1-Indian Bank. Since the defendant No.2 was unable to
repay the loan availed from the defendant No.1,
proceedings under the Securitization And Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFASI Act") was
initiated by the defendant No.1-Bank.
5.
Apprehending that he would be dispossessed
from the property in the said SARFASI proceedings, the
plaintiff/tenant filed the said suit seeking for permanent
injunction restraining the defendant from evicting him
from the suit property. The auction of the suit property in
the said SARFASI proceedings having been completed and
the suit property was sold by sale certificate dated
29.12.2009 which was registered on 22.01.2010 in favour
- 4 -
of Mr.A.Papa Reddy. The said auction purchaser impleaded
himself as defendant No.3 in the said suit. Subsequent to
the said implement, the defendant No.3 filed IA.No.3
under Order VIII Rule-1 of CPC to reject the plaint. The
Trial Court vide its order dated 20.01.2015 allowed
IA.No.3 and rejected the suit in O.S.No.305/2008.
6.
It is further forthcoming that the auction
purchaser filed O.S.No.37/2010 to evict the tenant from
the suit property. The said suit was being called along with
O.S.No.37/2010.
7.
The
order
dated
20.01.2015
passed
in
O.S.No.305/2008 was challenged by the tenant in
R.A.No.9/2015. The First Appellate Court vide its judgment
dated 10.06.2016, allowed the appeal; the order dated
20.01.2015 allowing IA.No.6 by the auction purchaser was
set aside and the said application was dismissed; the
matter was remanded to the Trial Court by directing that
the suit in O.S.No.305/2008 along with O.S.No.37/2010
filed
by
the
auction
purchaser
be
disposed
off
- 5 -
simultaneously. Being aggrieved, the present second
appeal is filed by the auction purchaser.
8.
It
is
vehemently
contended
by
Sri.Chaitanaykumar Chandriki, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant that the suit filed by the tenant is not
maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court in the
case of M.G.Ashwatha Shastri Vs. Canara Bank
Chamarajpet Branch, Chamarajpet, Bangalore and
Others, reported in 2011 (5) KCCR 3768. Hence, he
seeks for allowing of the above second appeal and setting
aside of the judgment of the First Appellate Court.
9.
Per contra, Sri.Ravi B.Patil, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1/tenant submits that the
tenant
cannot
be
evicted
by
taking
recourse
to
proceedings under SARFASI Act and this propostition has
been laid down by the by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Vishal N.Kalsaria Vs. Bank of India and
Others, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 762. Hence, he
seeks for dismissal of the above second appeal.
- 6 -
10. Sri.Krupa
Sagar
Patil,
learned
counsel
appearing for the respondent No.2-bank submits that in
the auction conducted pursuant to the proceedings under
the SARFASI Act, the sale certificate has been executed in
favour of the auction purchaser who was acquired title to
the suit property.
11. I have considered the submissions of both the
aforementioned learned counsel and perused the material
available
on
record.
The
question
that
arise
for
consideration is;
"Whether the
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.