IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 695 OF 2025 (DEC/POS)

BETWEEN: SMT. JAYA W/O K.M. MADHU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT. 7/218, (ASST. NO 715)

7^TH WARD, RAJARAJESHWARI KALYANA MANTAPA ROAD, KOLLEGALA TOWN, CHAMRAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 440.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJUNATH.G, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. M. JAGADISH S/O. LATE V.N. MANIKYAM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT. 3^RD CROSS, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, Digitally signed by KOLLEGALA TOWN, MADHURI S CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 440.

Location: …RESPONDENT High Court of (BY SRI. B R VISWANATH.,ADVOCATE)

Karnataka THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.01.2025. PASSED IN OS.NO.29/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGALA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION.

THIS APPEAL IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 12.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.29/2019 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.01.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent – plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule immovable property and for other reliefs was decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the appellant – defendant.

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, mesne profits and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule property. The plaintiff specifically contended that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one N.M.Madeshaiah, who acquired the same under a registered Will dated 08.03.1965 executed in his favour by the owner Nanjundaiah, upon whose demise, the said Madeshaiah became the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said Madeshaiah expired leaving behind his wife Smt.Mahadevamma and their children Suresh, Paramesh and Rekha, all of whom jointly sold the suit schedule property for valuable consideration in favour of the plaintiff vide registered sale deed 10.12.2015. It was contended that in pursuance of the said sale deed, the khata of the suit schedule property was changed to the name of the plaintiff who paid taxes and became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It was also contended that at the time of his purchase, the appellant – defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having been inducted therein by his vendors and the plaintiff intimated the defendant about his purchasing the suit schedule property and called upon the defendant to quit, deliver and vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. It was also contended that since the defendant did not comply with the demands made by the plaintiff and after exchange of notices, the plaintiff instituted eviction proceedings in HRC No.2/2017 against the defendant which culminated in an order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the Rent Control Court, dismissing the petition on the ground that the plaintiff had not established the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the defendant. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the present suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs against the defendant.

3. The appellant – defendant contested the suit by filing written statement disputing and denying the allegations and claim made by the plaintiff. It was contended that the defendant’s mother Smt.Puttamma was residing in the suit schedule property for the past 60 years and after her demise, defendant inherited the property and is in occupation of the suit schedule property from 1971 onwards and in view of the dismissal o