Sri. T. Ramaiah vs Sri. Manjunatha
2022 Latest Caselaw 9384 Kant

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

                R.F.A.NO. 490 OF 2020 (INJ)
BETWEEN
SRI. T. RAMAIAH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O NO.22/2, 8TH CROSS ROAD
THIMMAIAH GARDEN, R.T.NAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 032.
                                                 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)
AND
1.     SRI. MANJUNATHA
       S/O LATE H. MUNIYAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
       R/A 22/1, 8TH CROSS ROAD
       THIMMAIAH GARDEN, R.T.NAGAR POST
       BENGALURU - 560 032.

2.     SMT. POORNIMA A,
       W/O JAYARAM S.,
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
       2ND CROSS
       VASANTHAPPA BLOCK
       Y.S. PLAZA, GANGANAGAR
       BENGALURU - 560 032.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2;
    NOTICE TO R-1 IS H/S V/O/DT: 30.05.2022)
     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 18.12.2019
PASSED IN O.S.NO.350/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL
                                 2



CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                           JUDGMENT

This appeal by the plaintiff in O.S.No.350/2017 is

directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated

18.12.2019 passed by the VII Addl.City Civil and Sessions

Judge, Bangalore (for short 'the trial court'), whereby the said

suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs in respect of the

suit schedule property was dismissed by the trial court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for the respondent and perused the material on

record.

3. The material on record discloses that the appellant -

plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit before the trial court inter

alia contending that he was a tenant in lawful and peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property under

respondent No.1 - defendant No.1 vide registered rent

agreement dated 28.07.2016 executed in favour of the

appellant. The 1st respondent - 1st defendant remained ex-

parte and did not contest the suit, while the 2nd respondent -

2nd defendant contested the suit inter alia contending that

though the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the

suit schedule property, there was no cause of action for the

suit and in addition to the fact that the suit property was

required by 2nd defendant for the bonafide use of his family

members, the appellant had not approached the court with

clean hands and was not entitled to any relief in the suit.

4. A perusal of the material on record indicates that

though the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the

appellant remained unimpeached, uncontroverted and

unchallenged and the 2nd respondent did not adduce any

rebuttal evidence, the trial court failed to consider and

appreciate the admission of the 2nd respondent that the

plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property and proceeded to dismiss the suit on surmises and

conjectures; the impugned judgment and decree is clearly

contrary to the material on record which establishes that the

appellant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property and could not have been dispossessed

except by following due process of law and failure to

appreciate this has resulted in erroneous conclusion.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and

upon re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the entire material

on record, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and

decree passed by the trial court suffers from several infirmities

warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal.

6. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated

18.12.2019 passed in O.S.No.350/2017 by the VII Addl. City

Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

(iii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby restrained

from dispossessing the appellant - plaintiff from the suit

schedule property except by following due process of law.

(iv) The appellant is directed to pay up-to-date rents

within a period of four weeks from today and continue to pay

the same to the respondent - landlord, who shall be entitled to

receive the same without prejudice to his rights and

contentions.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sv/Srl.