Karnataka High Court
The Archdiocese Of Bangalore vs D. N. Nagendra on 11 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45681
RSA No. 1554 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1554 OF 2023 (RES)
BETWEEN:
THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BANGALORE
A PUBLIC RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE TRUST
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
ARCHBISHOPS HOUSE No.45, MILLERS ROAD,
BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE-560046
RT. REV DR PETER MACHADO,
ARCHBISHOP OF BANGALORE
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS DULY
AUTHORISED AGENT
MS. MARIA SHANTI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
D/O MONY AROCKIASWAMY,
AT No.211, 8TH CROSS, PILLANNA GARDEN,
ST THOMAS TOWN POST,
Digitally signed BANGALORE-560 084.
by DEVIKA M ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANILKUMAR A., ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
D.N. NAGENDRA
S/O. R. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT
SHOP No.05, (FIRST FLOOR),
SHOPPING COMPLEX OF
ST. FRANCIS XAVIER CHURCH
M.G. ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45681
RSA No. 1554 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, 1908
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.12.2022
PASSED IN R.A.NO.149/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.10.2019
PASSED IN OS NO.83/2013 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. The
factual matrix of case of the appellant/plaintiff before the
Trial Court that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the
property and defendant is the tenant and defendant
denied the very tenancy and hence Trial Court framed an
issues whether the plaintiff prove that he is the absolute
owner of the plaint schedule property, whether the plaintiff
NC: 2025:KHC:45681
HC-KAR
proves that there exists a relationship of landlord and
lessee between the plaintiff and defendant. In order to
substantiate the case of the plaintiff, examined the power
of attorney holder as P.W.1 and P.W.1 deposed before the
Court that he is not having any personal knowledge about
the document of Ex.P.3-rental agreement. Apart from that
he categorically admits that he never witnessed the
payment of rent. In order to substantiate that the
respondent was a tenant, not placed any material before
the Court, even not produced any book maintained by the
plaintiff for having taken any rent from the tenant. Even
though P.W.2 deposed before the Court that he has got
documents for having issued the rent receipt and he is
having a receipt counter file. But, he has not produced any
counter file as deposed on oath. Having taken note of
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the Trial court answered the
Issue No.1 as negative in coming to the conclusion that in
order to prove the relationship of tenant and landlord,
nothing is placed on record and hence dismissed the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:45681
HC-KAR
3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
decree of dismissal of the suit, an appeal is filed before the
Appellate Court. The Appellate Court having re-assessed
both oral and documentary evidence as well as the
grounds which have been urged formulated the point
whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiff is the absolute
owner of the suit schedule property and whether the
plaintiff further proves the relationship of tenant and
landlord between the plaintiff and defendant and whether
judgment and decree of the Trial Court is perverse and
whether it requires interference of appellate Court. The
appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and
documentary evidence available on record, comes to the
conclusion that nothing is placed on record to establish the
relationship between the tenant and landlord and though
claims that Ex.P.3 is the rental agreement and in order to
prove the same also, the plaintiff has not placed any
material either rent receipt and even though examined the
P.W.2 that he is having a counter file having issued the
NC: 2025:KHC:45681
HC-KAR
receipt and the same is also not produced before the
Court. Hence, having considered the reasoning of the Trial
Court, the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that
nothing is placed on record in order to comes to other
conclusion and dismissed the appeal.
4. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court. The main
contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant
before this Court is that defendant is estopped from
disputing the appellant's title as per Section 116 of Indian
Evidence Act and also the appellant is the sole trustee
owning the movable property under its jurisdiction. Hence,
this Court has to admit and frame substantive question of
law.
5. Having heard the appellant's counsel and it is
not the case of the appellant that both the Courts have not
considered the material available on record. But, having
considered the material on record, when the specific issue
was framed before the Trial Court with regard to the jural
NC: 2025:KHC:45681
HC-KAR
relationship between the parties are concerned since the
tenant disputes the jural relationship and in order to prove
the case of the plaintiff, examined P.W.1 who is a GPA
holder and GPA holder in his cross-examination
categorically says that the executant of the GPA is hale
and healthy and he is taking care of the administration
and no explanation with regard to why he did not enter
into the witness box. Apart from that witness who has
been examined before the Court is not aware anything
about Ex.P.3-rental agreement allegedly executed and
even clear admission is given that he has not witnessed at
any point of time payment of rent by tenant in favour of
the plaintiff. He is also not having any personal knowledge
about the rental agreement and he is not having personal
knowledge about the suit schedule property and all these
admissions were taken note of by the Trial Court. The Trial
Court in detail discussed the admission on the part of
P.W.1 while considering the material on record. Even
though P.W.2 was examined, he also re-iterated that
NC: 2025:KHC:45681
HC-KAR
execution of power of attorney in favour of P.W.1 and also
deposed before the Court that he did not see the
defendant and he categorically admits that he did not
know anything about what business defendant is doing in
the rented premises and also not maintained any book of
payment of rent. But, though he claims that he gave the
instructions to the advocate to prepare the suit and also
though claims that he has issued the receipt and also
having counter file in his custody, but, he did not produce
anything before the Court and even not placed any record
by P.W.2 to establish the jural relationship between the
plaintiff and defendant as landlord and tenant. When such
materials are considered by the Trial Court and Appellate
Court, when there is no any perversity with regard to the
finding of tenancy is concerned since the plaintiff fails to
establish the jural relationship between a landlord and
tenant. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and
frame any substantive question of law and this Court can
exercise the powers under Section 100 of CPC only if there
NC: 2025:KHC:45681
HC-KAR
is any perversity in the finding of Trial Court and Appellate
Court without considering the material and no such
perversity is found and with regard to the question of law
is also concerned, when the plaintiff fails to prove the jural
relationship between the plaintiff and defendant as a
landlord and tenant, question of admitting the second
appeal does not arise. Hence, I do not find any ground to
admit and frame substantive question of law.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
Second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
