IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 507 OF 2010 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. KAMALAMMAL @ KAMALAMMA W/O LATE B.K. NARAYANASWAMY SINCE DECEASED BY LR 1(A) SRI. RAMASWAMY S/O LATE B.K. NARAYANASWAMY AND SMT. KAMALAMMAL @ KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS NO. 18/1, OLD BYAPPANAHALLI BANGALORE-560 033.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M 1. SRI. SHAIK SARDAR Location:

S/O SHAIK DADAR SAB HIGH COUR T OF MAJOR KARNATAKA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

1(A) SMT. HASMATH UNIS AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS W/O LATE SHAIK SARDAR

1(B) SRI. S. REHMAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O LATE SHAIK SARDAR

1(C) SRI. S. RAHIM AGED AOBUT 38 YEARS S/O LATE SHAIK SARDAR

1(D) SMT. HASEENA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS D/O LATE SHAIK SARDAR

1(E) SMT. S. FIRDOSE AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O LATE SHAIK SARDAR ALL ARE RESIDING AT H.L.NO.2 SY.NO.29, NEAR MAHESWARIAMMA TEMPLE OLD BYAPPANAHALLI BANGALORE-560 033.

2. SMT. ASMAT UNNISA W/O SHAIK SARDAR MAJOR R1 AND R2 R/AT H.L.NO.2, SY.NO.29 NEAR MAHESWARIAMMA TEMPLE OLD BYAPPANAHALLI BANGALORE-560 033.

3. SMT. THANJAMMAL ALIAS RANI D/O LATE B.K.NARAYANASWAMY AND SMT. KAMALAMMAL @ KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS NO.66, OSEBEN ROAD CONTONMENT, BANGALORE-560 033.

4. SMT. B.N. RAJAMMAL @ RAJESHWARI D/O LATE B.K.NARAYANASWAMY AND SMT. KAMALAMMAL @ KAMALAMMA W/O SRI. GIRIRAJ AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS NO.1889, 8^TH CROSS HAL 3^RD STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA BANGALORE-560 075.

5. SRI. B.N.MOHAN S/O LATE B.K.NARAYANASWAMY AND SMT. KAMALAMMAL @ KAMALAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

5(I) SMT. DHANALAKSHMI W/O LATE B.N.MOHAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

5(II) SRI. SARAVANA KUMAR S/O LATE B.N.MOHAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

5(III) SMT. MAHESHWARI D/O LATE B.N.MOHAN AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

5(IV) SRI. SELVARAJ S/O LATE B.N.MOHAN AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.30 OLD BYAPPANAHALLI, 3^RD CROSS NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE M.S. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 033.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.A. HUMAYUN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R1(A - D & F);

SRI. H.N. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R5(I TO IV);

R4 - SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;

V/O/D 05.03.2019 R1(E) DELETED FROM THE APPLICATION)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W ORDSER XXXXI RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED23.11.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.2371/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH 28), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2009 passed in O.S.No.2371/2000 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-28), whereby the plaintiff's suit seeking possession from the defendants is dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish her title over the suit schedule property.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in O.S.No.2371/2000.

3. Brief facts leading to the case are as under;

The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession alleging that she has acquired title over the suit schedule property comprising of a house and a vacant site, which is the part and parcel of Sy. No.29. The plaintiff asserts that based on an oral understanding and on payment of rent at the rate of ₹200/- per month, she inducted the defendants into the suit schedule property. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants are licensees in possession of the property. Therefore, the present suit is filed seeking recovery of possession on the ground that defendants are in unauthorised possession and are, therefore, also liable to pay damages at the rate of ₹1,000/- per month commencing from 01.04.2000 till possession of the schedule property is handed over to the plaintiff. The suit is filed seeking direction against the defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plai