Ex parte proceedings do not dispense with proof; unrebutted evidence established the plaintiff’s title and possession.

The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of a 4,500 sq. ft. property originally belonging to Mrs. Appalla Narasamma. The property had been leased to M/s. Car Care Clinic in 1982. Under a tripartite arrangement dated 2 October 1987, the existing lease was surrendered, a fresh lease was executed in favour of the plaintiff’s father, Mr. B. Rajappa, and the superstructure was conveyed to him through documents dated 2 November 1987.

The plaintiff alleged that her father paid the entire agreed sale consideration of ₹40,00,000 for the land on 30 October 1992, although a formal sale deed was not executed. He remained in possession until his death on 13 June 2019, after which the plaintiff claimed possession as his only legal heir.

The plaintiff relied on tax and electricity receipts, identity and address documents, and other records to establish possession.

The first defendant issued a notice dated 11 October 2023 claiming that he was the plaintiff’s father’s brother and that the father had executed an unregistered Will in his favour. The plaintiff denied the claim and instituted the suit seeking declaration of absolute ownership, permanent injunction, and mandatory injunction for return of specified title and transaction documents.

Despite service of summons, the defendants did not appear and were set ex parte on 4 February 2025. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs. P.1 to P.17.

1. Whether the plaintiff established her title and was entitled to a declaration that she was the absolute owner of the suit property?

2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the property?

3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to hand over the specified original documents?

4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs and the other reliefs claimed in the suit?

The suit was instituted under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as stated in the plaint.

The Court applied the general principle that an ex parte proceeding does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a decree; the plaintiff must independently establish the pleaded case through oral and documentary evidence.

For declaratory relief, the plaintiff was required to establish her claimed title, while the injunction relief depended on proof of her possession and the defendants’ alleged interference.

The Court relied principally on the documentary evidence relating to the original lease, surrender of lease, subsequent lease, transfer of the superstructure, succession, possession, and the defendants’ notice.

No specific judicial precedents or detailed statutory provisions under the Specific Relief Act were cited in the judgment.

The Court found P.W.1’s testimony consistent with Exs. P.1 to P.17.

The documents established the original lease in favour of M/s. Car Care Clinic, surrender of that lease, the subsequent lease in favour of Mr. Rajappa, and the transfer of the superstructure to him.

The death certificate and legal-heirship certificate supported the plaintiff’s succession claim, while the tax, electricity, gas, identity, and other records supported her assertion of continued possession.

The first defendant’s notice demonstrated the existence of a competing claim and the alleged threat to the plaintiff’s possession.

Although the defendants were ex parte, the Court expressly assessed the evidence independently and held that there was no rebuttal or competing documentary evidence establishing any right, title, or interest in their favour.

On that basis, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had proved her case.

C.S. No. 192 of 2024 was decreed ex parte with costs.

The judgment granted the plaintiff the reliefs sought, including declaration of ownership, permanent injunction against interference with her possession, and mandatory relief concerning the specified documents, as prayed for in the plaint.