A KUMAR vs R AGILAN

- 1 -
RFA No. 759 of 2020


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 759 OF 2020


BETWEEN:

1. A KUMAR
S/O LATE ANNAMALAI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

2. SMT POONGUDI
W/O SRI A KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

BOTH ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING IN
OLD NO.21, LATER NO.J-57
PRESENT NO.J-11
DR.T.C.M. ROYAN ROAD,
CHELUVADI PALYA
CHIKKAPETE, BANGALORE-560 053
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VAGEESHA N AND
SRI. A. RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATES)

AND:

R AGILAN
S/O LATE RAJASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.105
KESHAVANAGAR I CROSS,
K.P AGRAHARA, MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 023
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V. RAJANNA, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2020












Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
RFA No. 759 of 2020


PASSED IN O.S.NO.4083/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVII
ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38) BANGALORE, DECREEING
THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 29.10.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CAV JUDGMENT

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants-
defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated
28.02.2020 passed by the XXXVII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge (CCH-38), Bengaluru City (for short, "the Trial
Court"), whereby the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff
for declaration and possession.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The
appellants are the defendants and the respondents are the
plaintiffs.
3. The abridged facts of the case are as under:
The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants
seeking a declaration of absolute title and recovery of
possession, asserting that he purchased suit Schedule 'A'

- 3 -
RFA No. 759 of 2020


property under a registered sale deed dated 30.10.2004
(Ex.P15), of which Schedule 'B' forms a part. The plaintiff
claimed that in 2005, the 1st defendant was permitted to
temporarily occupy the Schedule 'B' tiled-roofed house for six
months at a monthly rent of Rs.200/-, which tenancy later
became a point of dispute when the defendants defaulted on
rent and claimed independent ownership. An earlier eviction
petition, HRC No.67/2017, filed by the plaintiff was dismissed
on 07.04.2018 solely due to the absence of a proved jural
landlord-tenant relationship, with the Small Causes Court
directing the parties to approach a civil court.
4. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the present suit. Per
contra, the defendants contended that they had independently
acquired the property in 1989–90 and were in peaceful
possession thereof. The Trial Court, upon evaluating the oral
and documentary evidence, decreed the suit in favour of the
plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this
Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel Sri Vageesha N. and Sri
A. Ramachandra for the appellants/defendants and the learned
counsel Sri V. Rajanna for the respondents/plaintiffs.

- 4 -
RFA No. 759 of 2020


6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the appellants/defendants is that the Trial Court totally erred in
decreeing the suit without careful scrutiny of the titles of
Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. According to him, the schedule
in the Sale Deed dated 30.10.2004 and the descriptions of
Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties are totally different. The
defendants contend that they are residing in the 'B' schedule
property ever since 1989-90, i.e., prior to the acquisition of
Schedule 'A' property by the plaintiff, in their independent
right, thereby possessing an independent possessory title. It is
further submitted that a huge banyan tree exists between
Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties, bifurcating them. The plaint
averment describes Schedule 'A' property as a site bearing
No.3 situated at Cheluvadi Muniga Lane, Bengaluru Ward
No.30, whereas Schedule 'B' property is described as bearing
old No.J-20 and new No.3, Cheluvadi Muniga Lane, Dr. T.C.M.
Royan Road, Cheluvadi Palya, indicating that they are distinct
entities. Placing reliance on the admissions of PW.1 in cross-
examination regarding the non-mentioning of Property No.J-20
in Ex.P1 and the boundaries, the learned counsel submitted
that the evidence and documents clearly prove that Schedule
'A' and 'B' properties are separate. As such, the judgment and

- 5 -
RFA No. 759 of 2020


decree passed by the Trial Court are erroneous and liable to be
set aside. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
7. Per contra , the learned counsel for the
plaintiff/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment and
decree, contended that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the
property bearing No.3 measuring east to west 25 feet and
north to south 15 feet out of a larger extent of 30' x 50'
bifurcated by the Corporation (Schedule 'A' property), having
purchased the same under a registered absolute Sale Deed
dated 30.10.2004. Thereafter, a small portion measuring 15' x
15' (Schedule 'B' property) was let out to the defendants in the
year 2005 at a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. When the building
became dilapidated, the BBMP issued a notice dated
19.10.2010 directing demolition, prompting the plaintiff to
request the defendants to vacate, which they failed to do. This
led to the filing of HRC No.67/2017, which was dismissed solely
on the ground that a jural relationship of landlord and tenant
was not formally established, leaving the plaintiff to seek
remedies before the civil court in O.S. No.4083/2018.
8. The learned counsel further submitted that the
larger extent measuring 50' x 30' originally belonged to one

- 6 -
RFA No. 759 of 2020


Anwar Khan Kaleel and was divided into four parts, one of
which was purchased by the plaintiff. Apart from Schedule 'A'
property, no independent property exists as claimed by the
defendants. Moreover, minor discrepancies in boundaries or
property numbering, such as Old Kemmannagundi Road and
Dr. T.C.M. Royan Road being alternate names for the same
locality, do not alter the identity of the property. Accordingly,
he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
the points arising for my consideration are:
1. Whether the plaintiff proved that he is the
absolute owner of suit Schedule 'A' and 'B'
properties and that the defendants are in
unauthorized occupation of Schedule 'B' property?
2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree
suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting
interference?

10. Admittedly, the plaintiff purchased Schedule 'A'
property under a sale deed dated 30.10.2004 executed by
Usman Khan Kaleel @ Mustak Ahmed, marked as Ex.P1. The
description of Schedule 'A' property in the sale deed reads as
under:

- 7 -
RFA No. 759 of 2020


"All that piece and parcel of the house property bearing
No.3, situated at Chalvadi Muniga Lane, Bengaluru, Ward
No.30, Property ID No. (PID) Sri Krishnarajendra Market,
Bengaluru - 560 053, measuring east to west 25 feet and
north to south 15 feet out of 30' x 50' bifurcated by the
Corporation and bounded on the:
East by : Private Property
West by : Cheluvadi Muniga Lane
North by : Remaining Portion of the
property
South : Private property. "

11. Since there were minor manual corrections in the
boundaries of Schedule 'A' property, a rectification deed was
subsequently executed on 24.08.2006 (Ex.P2), wherein the
description was clarified as under:
"All that piece and parcel of the house property bearing
No.3, situated at (Old Kemmanagundi Road), Dr. T.C.M.
Royan Road, Cheluvadi Muniga Lane, Bengaluru, Ward
No.30, Property ID No. (PID) Sri Krishnarajendra Market,
Bengaluru - 560 053, measuring east to west 25 feet and
north to south 15 feet out of 30ft x 50ft bifurcated by the
Corporation and bounded on the:
East by : Dr. T.C.M. Royan Road
West by : Remaining portion of the same
property sold to Smt. D. Usha
North by : Remaining portion of the same

- 8 -
RFA No. 759 of 2020


property sold to Smt.
Pushpanamma
South : Private property"

12. The documentary evidence establishes that the
plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.3
situated at Old Kemmannagundi Road / Dr. T.C.M. Royan Road,
Cheluvadi Muniga Lane, measuring 25 feet east-west and 15
feet north-south, and all revenue records stand mutated in his
name. The records of HRC No.67/2017 reveal that the dismissal
of the eviction petition was strictly on the technical ground of
non-establishment of a jural landlord-tenant relationship,
rather than a finding against the plaintiff's title. Furthermore,
Ex.P6 demonstrates that the Assistant Executive Engineer, J.J.
Nagar Sub-Division, BBMP, issued a notice to the plaintiff to
demolish the dilapidated structure standing on Schedule 'A'
property. Photographs at Ex.P7 and P8 corroborate that
Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties form a single integrated unit,
part of which has been partially demolished due to its
dilapidated condition.
13. The contention of the defendants that a huge
banyan tree bifurcates Schedule 'A' and 'B 'properties into
distinct entities is devoid of merit. The material on record,

- 9 -
RFA No. 759 of 2020


including photographs and the rough sketch, indicates that the
banyan tree stands at a corner of the property, with its
branches overhanging the structure, rather than acting as a
physical boundary dividing two separate properties. The original
larger extent measuring 50' x 30' belonging to Anwar Khan
Kaleel was subdivided into four portions and allotted/sold to
separate purchasers, with the plaintiff's portion renumbered as
Property No.3 and adjacent portions as 3/1, 3/2, and 3/3.
14. Apart from placing reliance on minor discrepancies
and stray admissions in the cross-examination of PW.1
regarding property numbering and road names, the defendants
have failed to produce any title deeds, tax receipts, or
independent documentary evidence to substantiate their plea of
independent ownership or possessory title dating back to 1989–
90. The evidence conclusively proves that Schedule 'B' property
is an integral part and parcel of Schedule 'A' property, that the
plaintiff holds absolute title thereto, and that the defendants'
occupation of Schedule 'B' property is unauthorized.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the
Trial Court has meticulously appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence on record, and its findings do not suffer

- 10 -
RFA No. 759 of 2020


from any perversity, illegality, or legal infirmity. Accordingly,
points (i) and (ii) are answered in the affirmative.
ORDER
dismissed
1. The Regular First Appeal is .
2. The judgment and decree dated 28.02.2020
passed by the XXXVII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge (CCH-38), Bengaluru, in O.S.
No.4083/2018 is hereby affirmed.




SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE










PKS/V