IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2069 OF 2025 (RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI PRAKASH KUMAR DEAD BY HIS LRS, 1. SMT.SUNANDA, W/O LATE.PRAKASH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. KUMARI.PRADEEPTHI, D/O LATE. PRAKASH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 3. KUMARI PRASHASTHI D/O LATE PRAKASH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF Digitally JAIN TEMPLE ROAD, CHICKPET, signed by B LAVANYA TUMKUR CITY - 572101.

Location: … APPELLANTS HIGH COURT OF (BY SRI. BHARATH.B. YADAV FOR MS. NIVEDITHA KARNATAKA N.,ADVOCATES)

AND:

SMT LEELAVATHI DEAD BY LR, SRI.JAYAPRAKASH, S/O LATE. SRINIVAS SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.161, SRI. RANGANATHA KRUPA, 3RD CROSS, SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION, TUMKUR-572 102.

… RESPONDENT (BY SRI.BALAGANGADHARA G.S..,ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.09.2025, PASSED IN RA NO. 122/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.10.2024 PASSED IN OS NO. 256/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU, TRIAL COURT DECREED THE SUIT APPELLATE COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL THE SUIT FOR EVICTION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellants/defendants questioning the judgment and decree rendered by the Principal Senior Civil Judge CJM, Tumakuru, in RA.No.122/2024 dated 20.09.2025, confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2024 in O.S.No.256/2019 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, whereby the appellants, who are defendants, are directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the respondent/plaintiff within 60 days from the date of the said judgment.

3. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court as plaintiff and defendants for the sake of brevity.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows.

The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for ejectment and to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff and also by paying the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per month from 01.12.2014 till its realization. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Smt.Kamalamma, who was in possession of the same, and subsequently, Smt.Kamalamma sold the suit schedule property by way of a registered settlement deed dated 18.03.1991 in favour of Karnataka Chinmai Seva Trust, Tumakuru, and that prior to the execution of the registered settlement deed in the year 1978, defendants had approached and requested the said Smt.Kamalamma for the property to be given on rent for residential purposes. Accordingly, it was rented to the defendants by Smt.Kamalamma. The suit schedule premises was given on rent to the defendants by Smt. Kamalamma at the rate of Rs.50/- per month by oral agreement, and the rental amount was paid to Smt.

Kamalamma till the sale deed was made and the settlement deed was made in favour of the purchaser i.e.

Karnataka Chinmai Seva Trust.

5. It is further case of the plaintiff that in pursuance of the said rental agreement, defendants continued in the suit schedule premises as a tenant and stopped paying the rent to the trust. Further defendants became a chronic defaulter on payment of rent. This being the state of affairs, the said Karnataka Chinmai Seva Trust executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 01.12.2014 for a valuable sale consideration and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule premises.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that immediately after purch