T. VISHWANATH SHETTY vs VENKATESH SRIRANGA BHAT
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16476
RSA No. 100236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020043132026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100236 OF 2026 (DEC-)
BETWEEN:
T. VISHWANATH SHETTY,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. J N ROAD, DANDELI, TQ. DANDELI,
DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581325.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.V. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VENKATESH SRIRANGA BHAT,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC. GOLDSMITH,
R/O. ‘MEERA’ BUILDING,
NEAR RAGHVENDRAMATHA, TOWNSHIP, DANDELI,
TQ. DANDELI. DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581325.
Digitally
signed by
BHARATHI
H M
Date:
2026.10.14
15:06:17
+0530
2. COMMISSIONER,
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DANDELI,
TQ. DANDELI, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581325.
BHARATHI
H M
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 21.01.2026 PASSED IN R.A.NO.6/2025 BY THE HON’BLE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HALIYAL AND DISMISS THE SUIT
IN O.S.NO.97/2019 BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 29.03.2025 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
DANDELI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16476
RSA No. 100236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020043132026
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned
Counsel for Respondent No.1.
2. Defendant No.1 in O.S. No.97/2019 has
preferred this regular second appeal.
3. The plaintiff namely Sri Venkatesh Srirang Bhat
maintained the suit in O.S. No.97/2019 for the relief of
declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit
property in pursuance of sale deed dated 25.10.1989 and
for a direction against Defendant No.1 to hand over vacant
possession of the suit property as well as for mesne profit
at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of suit
till the delivery of vacant possession of the suit property to
him. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the suit
property from Sri R. Swaminathan under a registered sale
deed dated 25.10.1989 and thereafter he leased out the
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16476
RSA No. 100236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020043132026
schedule property to Defendant No.1 under lease
agreement dated 01.04.2001 initially for a period of 11
months. It is stated that subsequently the lease was
renewed on 01.03.2002, 01.02.2003 and 15.10.2008. The
plaintiff alleged that during subsistence of the lease
agreement, Defendant No.1 committed default in payment
of monthly rents, which gave a right to him to terminate
the tenancy. He further submitted that Defendant No.1
failed to hand over vacant possession of the suit property
to him in spite of expiry of lease period and repeated
request. It is contended that in the above circumstances
the plaintiff got issued legal notice to Defendant No.1
calling upon him to vacate and hand over the vacant
possession of the suit property. As the Defendant No.1
failed to comply with such demand, the plaintiff instituted
the suit.
4. On service of summons, both the defendants
appeared before the trial court through their counsel.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16476
RSA No. 100236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020043132026
However, Defendant No.2 neither filed his written
statement nor contested the suit.
5. Defendant No.1 in his written statement
contended that the plaintiff knows that he owns the
extended portion of the building beyond 15 ft. X 20 ft.,
purchased by the plaintiff and that he was entitled to
purchase the said portion from its erstwhile owner on the
basis of right of pre-emption. He further contended that
he occupied the building on 1.9.2009 and that the plaintiff
has no right to ask for vacating the premises during
subsistence of lease. He submitted that the plaintiff is a
money lender and owns two more buildings and as such
the plaintiff does not need the suit property for his
personal use. He stated that CMC, Dandeli has executed a
registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the
property bearing CTS Nos.4494 and 4495 measuring
122.13 sq.mtrs. and 107.13 sq.mtrs. respectively. Hence,
he prayed to dismiss the suit.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16476
RSA No. 100236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020043132026
6. The trial court, based on the pleadings, framed
relevant issues, recorded the evidence adduced by the
parties, heard the arguments advanced on both sides and
decreed the suit in part vide its judgment dated
29.3.2025. The trial court held that the plaintiff has
proved his title over Shop No.I/21 measuring 15 ft. X 20
ft. bounded on East by vacant land, West by J. N. Road,
North by Site No.20 and South by Site No.22 and that
Defendant No.1 is in illegal occupation of the said portion.
Accordingly, the trial court directed Defendant No.1 to
vacate and hand over vacant possession of the said
property to the plaintiff within a period of three months
from the date of decree and also held that the plaintiff is
entitled for mesne profit.
7. Defendant No.1 preferred the appeal in R.A.
No.6/2025 challenging the judgment and decree of the
trial court. The first appellate court, on re-appreciating
the materials available on record, concurred with the
findings of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Feeling
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16476
RSA No. 100236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020043132026
aggrieved, Defendant No.1 has preferred this regular
second appeal.
8. Sri G. V. Bhat, learned Counsel for Defendant
No.1 vehemently submitted that the courts below erred in
decreeing the suit in part, i.e. to an extent of 15 ft. X 20
ft. though the plaintiff maintained the suit claiming his
ownership and possession in respect of a property
measuring 15 ft. X 50 ft. He further submitted that though
the Commissioner of CMC, Dandeli is one of the
defendants in the suit, the plaintiff maintained the suit
without complying with Section 80 of CPC and as such the
suit was not maintainable. He contended that the courts
below failed to properly appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence available on record and to arrive at
a proper conclusion. Hence, he prayed to set aside the
judgment and decree of the courts below on the ground it
is patently perverse and unsustainable in law.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16476
RSA No. 100236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020043132026
9. Per contra, learned Counsel for Respondent
No.1/Plaintiff supported the findings recorded by the
courts below and submitted that the plaintiff concedes the
findings recorded by the courts below. He further
submitted that the plaintiff has no claim whatsoever over
the building situated beyond the Shop No.I/21 measuring
15 ft. X 20 ft.
10. As pointed out earlier, the plaintiff maintained
the suit for declaration of his title in respect of a building
bearing Municipal Assessment No.IA/198 measuring
approximately North to South 15 ft. and East to West 50
ft., bounded on East by Municipal Land encroached by
State Emporium and CMC land, West by J. N. Road, South
by shop building of Sri Kanpuri/the shop of Kachin Tailors
and North by compound wall of State Emporium
Building/public property of Sri C. H. Abdulla in Commercial
Plot No.II/21, located Opposite to KSRTC Bus Stand, J. N.
Road, Dandeli, Haliyal Taluk and for its possession.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16476
RSA No. 100236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020043132026
11. The plaintiff arraigned the Commissioner of
CMC, Dandeli as Defendant No.2 in the suit. However, the
case papers make it clear that the plaintiff has not sought
any relief against them and that the Commissioner of
CMC, Dandeli is only a formal party in the proceeding.
12. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased
the suit property from one Sri R. Swaminathan under a
registered sale deed dated 25.10.1989. It is further case
of the plaintiff that initially the schedule property was
leased out to Defendant No.1 under a lease agreement
dated 01.04.2001 for a period of 11 months, which was
subsequently extended from time to time under lease
agreements dated 1.3.2002, 1.2.2003 and 15.10.2008.
Thus, the plaintiff claimed that he is the owner of the suit
property and that Defendant No.1 was a tenant of the said
property under him.
13. Defendant No.1 contested the suit by on ground
that CMC, Dandeli has executed a registered sale deed in
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16476
RSA No. 100236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020043132026
his favour in respect of the land situated beyond the suit
property and that he owns the extended building situated
beyond the portion purchased by the plaintiff measuring
15 ft. X 20 ft. Thereby, it is crystal clear that Defendant
No.1 admits the ownership of the plaintiff over a portion of
the suit property measuring 15 ft. X 20 ft. Further,
Defendant No.1 has not disputed he being in possession of
such property as a tenant under the plaintiff.
14. As pointed out earlier, the courts below have
held that the plaintiff has proved his ownership over shop
No.I/21 measuring 15 ft. X 20 ft. and directed Defendant
No.1 to hand over vacant possession of the said property
to the plaintiff, considering termination of the tenancy and
the request of the plaintiff for its possession. Defendant
No.1 has not pointed out any error committed by the
courts below in directing him to vacate and hand over
vacant possession of the tenanted premises, i.e., Shop
No.I/21 measuring 15 ft. X 20 ft. to the plaintiff.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16476
RSA No. 100236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020043132026
15. It is true that the plaintiff filed the suit claiming
his ownership over the property, i.e., the building bearing
Municipal Assessment No.IA/198 approximately measuring
15 ft. X 50 ft. and for its possession. As the plaintiff failed
to substantiate his claim over the said extent, the courts
below held that the plaintiff has proved his claim only in
respect of a portion of the suit property, i.e. Shop No.I/21
measuring 15 ft. X 20 ft. and decreed the suit only to the
said extent. The plaintiff has accepted such finding of the
courts below and did not challenge the judgment and
decree granted in his favour for lesser extent. This Court
finds no error committed by the courts below in granting
such relief to the plaintiff.
16. During the course of argument learned Counsel
for Defendant No.1 tried to dispute the maintainability of
the suit on the ground that the plaintiff instituted the suit
against the Commissioner, CMC, Dandeli without
complying with the stipulation under Section 80 of CPC.
This Court finds no merit in the above contention. It is
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16476
RSA No. 100236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020043132026
because as noted earlier Defendant No.2/ the
Commissioner, CMC, Dandeli is a formal party to the suit
and the suit is directed against Defendant No.1. Further,
the requirement of complying with Section 80 of CPC
would arise when a suit is instituted in respect of any act
purporting to be done by the Public Officer in his official
capacity. In the present case, the plaintiff has not
challenged any action of Defendant No.2 performed in his
official capacity. The suit is based on the lease entered
into with Defendant No.1 and its termination. Hence, it is
held that the compliance with Section 80 of CPC was not
required in the case.
17. Thus, on careful analysis of the materials
available on record, this Court finds no error committed by
the courts below either in declaring the plaintiff’s title in
respect of Shop No.I/21 to an extent of 15 ft. x 20 ft. or in
directing Defendant No.1 to hand over vacant possession
of the said portion to the plaintiff and in holding that the
plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits. For the foregoing
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16476
RSA No. 100236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020043132026
reasons, this Court holds that no substantial question of
law arises for consideration in the appeal.
18. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
Regular Second Appeal is dismissed .
Pending applications if any, stand disposed of, as
they do not survive for consideration.
SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
RH- upto para 11
HMB-Para 12 to end
CT:PA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 45