VENUGOPAL R vs BRIGADE MILLENIUM LABURNUM BLOCK
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56959
RFA No. 147 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010362602017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2017 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
VENUGOPAL R
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O S.B. RAMACHANDRA RAO
RD
# 1747, MANOJANA, 33 CROSS
TH ND
14 MAIN, BSK 2 STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 070.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C .N. SATHYANARAYANA SHASTRI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
BRIGADE MILLENIUM LABURNUM BLOCK
APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, FLAT #D-1004
BRIGADE MILLENNIUM LABURNUM BLOCK
PUTTENAHALLI, J.P.NAGAR
7TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVI KIRAN N, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.CHETANA., ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., 1908
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 04.11.2015
PASSED IN OS.NO.6097/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING
THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56959
RFA No. 147 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010362602017
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the plaintiff under Section 96
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’),
challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2015
passed by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (for short, ‘Trial Court’), in O.S. No.6097/2010,
whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be
dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that he was appointed
as an Estate Manager by the defendant vide appointment
letter dated 01.03.2008. Upon satisfactory completion of
the probationary period, the defendant confirmed the
services of the plaintiff and granted him an increment of
Rs.1,000/- vide confirmation letter dated 15.09.2008. The
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56959
RFA No. 147 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010362602017
plaintiff contends that he discharged his duties and
obligations towards the defendant with utmost sincerity
and honesty. However, all of a sudden, the defendant
terminated his services vide letter dated 31.03.2010.
Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff instituted the suit
seeking a decree of declaration and mandatory injunction.
4. Upon service of summons, the defendant appeared
through counsel and filed its written statement, denying
the allegations made in the plaint. The defendant
specifically denied that the plaintiff had discharged his
duties and obligations with utmost sincerity and honesty
and that he was entitled to continue in service. It was
further contended that, under Clause 17 of the bye-laws of
the Association, the Managing Committee was empowered
to dismiss or suspend any person, including the Estate
Manager, by passing a resolution and that the order of
termination had been issued after following the due
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56959
RFA No. 147 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010362602017
procedure of law. On these grounds, the defendant sought
dismissal of the suit.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial
Court framed the following issues and additional issues:
1. ¢£ÁAPÀ 1.3.2008 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
F¸ïÖ ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï CAvÀ £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArvÀÄÛ C£ÀÄߪÀ
CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¹AiÀiÁ£ÉÃ?
2. ¢£ÁAPÀ 31.3.2010 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
vÀ£Àß ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁUÉƽ¹zÀÄÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ
¨Á»gÀªÁVzÉ J£ÀÄߪÀ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ
¥Àr¹AiÀiÁ£ÉÃ?
3. ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÉýgÀĪÀ ¤zÉòðvÀ
vÁQÃvÀÄ DzÉñÀPÉÌ CºÀð£ÉÃ?
4. ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß ¸ÉêÁ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è C£ÀÄavɬÄAzÀ
ªÀwð¹ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ »vÁ¸ÀQÛUÉ «gÀÄzÀݪÁUÀĪÀ ZÀlĪÀnPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
ªÀiÁrzÁÝ£É CAvÀ PÉʶAiÀÄvï£À°è PÁt¹gÀĪÀ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¹AiÀiÁ£ÉÃ?
5. K£ÀÄ DzÉñÀ?
Additional issue:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, suit is
properly valued and Court Fee paid on the
same is sufficient?
6. To establish his case, the plaintiff examined
himself as PW-1 and produced 11 documents, which were
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56959
RFA No. 147 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010362602017
marked as Exs. P-1 to P-11. On behalf of the defendant,
its authorised representative and a member were
examined as DW-1 and DW-2, respectively, and Exs. D-1
to D-15 were marked. Upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court dismissed
the suit on the ground of maintainability. Consequently, no
finding was recorded on Issue No.4. However, Additional
Issue No.1 was answered in the affirmative. Being
aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has
preferred the present appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
plaintiff contended that the defendant had not raised any
plea regarding the maintainability of the suit in the written
statement. It was further contended that the Trial Court
had not framed any issue with regard to the
maintainability of the suit and that no opportunity had
been afforded to the plaintiff to address the said issue.
Without providing such an opportunity, the Trial Court
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56959
RFA No. 147 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010362602017
dismissed the suit solely on the ground that it was not
maintainable. Learned counsel submitted that, on this
ground alone, the impugned judgment and decree are
liable to be set aside and the matter may be remitted back
to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-defendant contended that the plaintiff had
been appointed as an Estate Manager on a contractual
basis, however, the Managing Committee, had terminated
the plaintiff’s services after issuing notice to him, in
exercise of its powers under Clause 17 of the bye-laws of
the Association. Therefore, since the dispute arose out of a
contract of personal service between the plaintiff and the
defendant, the suit was not maintainable. Learned counsel
submitted that the Trial Court, having considered the
judgment of this Court in United Theological College v.
Sunny Kulathakkal , reported in ILR 1989 Kar 3320,
had rightly dismissed the suit.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56959
RFA No. 147 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010362602017
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
appeal papers and the Trial Court records.
9. The following points arise for consideration in this
appeal:
(i) Whether the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court suffers from
perversity or illegality so as to call for this
Court’s interference?
(ii) Whether the Trial Court was justified in
dismissing the suit on maintainability, without
there is any pleading or issue on the point?
10. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was
appointed as an Estate Manager by the defendant vide
appointment letter dated 01.03.2008. It is also not in
dispute that the plaintiff’s services were terminated by the
defendant vide letter dated 31.03.2010.
11. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a
declaration that the order dated 31.03.2010 terminating
his services was null and void and contrary to law, and for
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56959
RFA No. 147 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010362602017
a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to
withdraw the order of termination and reinstate him in
service with full salary and all consequential benefits.
12. In response to the plaint, the defendant filed a
written statement denying the averments made therein.
However, the defendant did not specifically raise any plea
regarding the maintainability of the suit. No application
seeking rejection of the plaint was filed, nor was any issue
framed by the Trial Court regarding the maintainability of
the suit.
13. Nevertheless, in the impugned judgment and
decree, the Trial Court dismissed the suit solely on the
ground of maintainability, without recording any findings
on the other issues framed for consideration. No specific
issue regarding the maintainability of the suit had been
framed, and the plaintiff was not afforded an opportunity
to address the said question and establish the
maintainability of the suit. In the absence of such an
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56959
RFA No. 147 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010362602017
opportunity, the dismissal of the suit on the ground of
maintainability cannot be sustained.
14. In view of the above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned judgment and
decree warrants interference and that the matter requires
to be remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh
consideration, after framing an appropriate issue regarding
the maintainability of the suit and affording the parties an
opportunity to address the same.
15. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and decree dated 04.11.2015
passed by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No.6097/2010 are hereby
set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial
Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law,
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56959
RFA No. 147 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010362602017
after framing an appropriate issue regarding the
maintainability of the suit. The Trial Court shall
dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and,
in any event, within eight months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(iv) Both parties are directed to extend their co-
operation for the early disposal of the suit.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
CM
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 110