Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9858
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH 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)
D by ig N it A al G ly A s R i A gn JA ed
AND:
B M 1. SRI. SHAIK SARDAR L H O K o A F I c G R a H N ti A o C n T O : A U K R A T S M S /I A N O J C O S E R H D A E IK C E D A A S D E A D R B S Y A L B R S
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, 8TH CROSS HAL 3RD 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, 3RD 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)
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBMList No.: 2 Sl No.: 32
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W ORDSER XXXXI RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.11.2009 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.
The parties are referred to as per their rankings in O.S.No.2371/2000.
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 plaintiff.
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendants on the contrary asserted that suit schedule property was owned by one A.M.Ramamurthy Mudaliar and the then Government of Mysore had acquired entire extent of 4 acres 11 guntas in Sy. No.29, while this portion was intact and defendants occupied the building in Sy. No.29 measuring 25 feet x 50 feet and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.
The defendant No.2 has also filed a suit in O.S.No.15690/2000 seeking declaration of title by way of adverse possession.
Both the suits were clubbed together. The parties have led in oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.2371/2000 on the ground that plaintiffs have not established their title and in absence of seeking declaration of title, the present suit for possession is not maintainable.
The suit filed by the defendant No.2 was also dismissed. The defendants did not choose to challenge the decree of dismissal passed in O.S.No.15690/2000. The plaintiff in O.S.No.2371/2000 is before this Court assailing the dismissal of the suit.
This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and defendants. This Court has also meticulously examined the pleadings and the records and the oral and documentary evidence.
The following points would arise for consideration:-
(i) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate her title over the suit schedule property and therefore, mere suit for possession without seeking a declaration of title is not maintainable suffers from perversity and warrants interference?
(ii) Whether the additional evidence now produced by the plaintiff needs to be admitted and recorded for effective adjudication of the plaintiff's right to seek possession in the present suit?
(iii) What order?
Findings on point No.(i):-
Though several documents have been produced by the parties, a careful perusal of Exs.D.1 and D.2 clearly indicates that the suit
