IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT amen 11-35 THE 3"' 1>Ax¢or--' FEaRuAa»§éo¢9L%F%% THE HON'BLE MR.JU5'I'.ECE MOI-!:;4'N_ SHAiNTmA5ot§1%heA%§&%&1( H.R.R.P. % % H.R.R.P.No§.314;'2oo7; 290?, 3oa__/,g___o€>7. 310/2007 307/2001. soesgzoozgf 39242007 .
-IN”H.nR”.Ri;P.NO.306/2007
IN HRRP.313/:;_f§J€iAi7:’?V’..__ % A
BE’IWEEN’}v,..I,4,. :L:,’ V
W/0 iatcfiuppaswamy” A %
Aged aboutfifl years *
R10 i_11~.r3 hofthe ‘
P1’op’é:rty_no,103/”5… …..
.V ” ‘Q1d”No.133/’Aof Nagawarapalya
Dhakle
‘ Ra1i13n’Nagar Post
Banga}ore~§:3€s0’T093. ..Pctitione:r
V -V {By Murthy, Adv.,)
._ « ‘ ‘Soicnashckar
‘ _ Sfo Manjunatha
No.340, 6*” Cross
Vivekananda Street
Udayanagar, Dooxvaninagar Post
Bangalozt-:~–56O 016.
2. Smt. Muniyamma
Wfo Mtmiswamy
Old No.1{)3/5, Nagawarapalya
Bemnganahalli Dhaklc
C.V. Rama11NagarPost V ” ‘
Bangalore-560 093. _V V..R¢spg_>;:d¢Vnts
(By Sn S. Shivapmsad, Adv, for 1%’
Sri H. Ramachandra, Adm,” for R2)’ = .
This HRRP is fiiad” ‘ ¢ of the
Karnataka Rent Act 1999~aga§nst .§h¢’§1_-q¢’:i.v._gatcd 5-9-20m
passed in HRc;1~:¢;;j;3é:312oo:; an {ms vfiileef the Chief Judge,
I Court of éiiiqwing the petition filed
.~ , Munisizgazxfy
under
.e. .
IN 14/2oo7j;j;A%ju %
BETWEEN – V’ ”
S] Q
A ‘ ‘ V _ Agzeti-.about«5i).Vy*ea1*s
W irJ.<.5f..*he
1io."_i_v()_3,~',S
Old 'No. 133! A' £.:fNagawarapa1ya
Dhakle
Rama}: Nagar Post
" " "~–l3a1.1ga_1ore'»–56O 093. ..Petit;ioner
Ananthakriahna Murthy, Adv.)
AND :
1. -Somashekar
S] o Manjlmatba
No.34«O, 631 Cross
Vivekananda Street A
Udayanagar, Doorvaninagar Post}
Bangalore-560 016. ”
*3:
2. Smt. Muniyamxzaa
W/0 Muniswamy _
Old No.103/5, Nagawfahapalya. . ~ V ‘
Benniganahalli Dl1aklé’ ‘– ‘L
CV. Raman Nagar Post ” 1 u = ._
Bangalore-560993. I ..Rcsponden.ts
(By Sri S. Sbi*Japra§§a1i,’v.%_dV.”, .Vfor,R 2;; .
Sri H. ‘Adv;’,ffor R35)
Tms” “HI?IRPV’« “fi;:§a Sect.ion.46(1) of the
Kamatéika :Rcm”}a«;;1. the ottlcr dated 6-9-2007
passed 1:: mac Na.32:E4,’2’0Qé km the file of the Chief Judge,
of _:CaL1$>,es ,”.BVéii1galore allowing the petition filed
. 2’7(i2)(a)…& (13 of K.R.’Act.
BEW 3′ 5
*.Smt. Sushcelamma
. 0 __Vcni1
‘*.Ag§:d about 60 years
_ R,i<i"i::3; a portion ofthc
V %% Rent Act 1999 against the order dated 5-9»-2007
.i §–.._1fi'HC_l§o.34S/ 2002 on the file of the Chief Judge,
V L' under scgggg 27'(2)(a) as (13 of KR. Act.
Pmperty no. 10315
Old No.133/A of Nagawarapalya
Bcnniganahalli, Dhakle
C.V. Raxnan Nagar Post u _._
Bangak3rc-560 093. .-A4';§'Pe1:i[tVV;im"1'er""-[ *
(By Sri H.R. Ananthakn'shna Murthy,~Adv,,) " 2 j }' 4
AND: " V % %' ' V
1. Somashckar
S/o Manjunatha
No.340, 691 Cross
Vivekananda Street» ‘ _ ~ , .
Udayanagar, Doerva1i1′–:1agarLPa;§s’;t .A ”
Bangalore-560 O16. V 1 = ”
2. Smt. _ _
W/0 Munis*:¥aB’¥3?~_w ~ V
om No.1=i()3/S4,
~ . ”
c.v;vV’i2%ama;jj;Nag¥:as:«Pbst’~-
Bangalore-56.0 _ _’ “Respondents
(By Sri S; smapméga, Adi,’ 4225: R1;
Sri H. Ramachandm, Advggibr R2)
under Scctio:n.46(1) of the
Cauffof Bangalore aflow1ng’ the pctifion filed
IN HRRP.308/2007:
BETWEEN :
Smt. Muniyamma
W] o Muniswamy
Old No.103/5, Nagawampalya
Beraniganahalh Dhakle
C.V. Raman Nagar Post
Bangalore-S60 093.
(By sn rm. Ananthakrlshna Adv.)-
AND : .
1. Somashckar ;
S/o Manjunatha ‘
No.34″), 6&1′ cmsa. _’ ‘ ‘ _
Vivekanandzi 4′
Udayanagar; F”f”JS?Z H »
3anga1oregst3:p’;_)16′;- 4
Rio ‘ ‘
No.103i’5f._ ” ” ”
Old No.1-33/A of Nagawagrapalya
Q33′. Raman Hagar Past
E$;3J1galore_-560
Adv., for R1;
H__._ %Ramaghag;:iia, Adv., for R2)
; ‘ ‘ M
. . Respondents
is filed under Section.46{1) of the
“Karnat2ika 1~Rcnt Act 1999 against the order dated 6~9»200?
fpanséedé HRC No.343/ 2002 on the file of the Chief Judge,
Small Causes, Baiigalom anowing the pefiiien filed
upaer Section 27(2)(a) & (:3 of K.R. Act.
IN Hi2RP.3;O/2007:
BETWEEN :
Smt. Munéfamma
W/0 late uniswamy
R] a Portion of Sy.No. 133/A
Nagawarapalya
Bangalore South Taluk. _ V
(By Sri HR. Ananthakrlshna Adv;’,.} _
AND :
1. Somashckar . _ ‘
8/0 Manj1!x13t?§€it:’ =i ,
No.34o, ‘ .
VivekanaF11da’t*2″ft1eé*t» 4′ _ .
Udaya;1agar,” V’ -31-
Bangfaiorefiiso 0:36. .
2. Smt. Sushcelamztia ”
R/o at in a po1’tioii.()£7 the
Pmperty i’€..o.133]’._A V ‘
01;! No.103f5.,VN7agawa1’apa1ya
_C;V. Nagar Post
‘ G93. “Respondents
Adv., for R1;
Sri E-!.,_Ra:sx.9t¢,3aa11dI’a,Ac1v.,for R2)
2% I-{RRP is filed under Section.46(1) of the
Rent Act 1999 against the order dated 6~9-2007
in HRC2 No.3-<!–5/ 2002 on the file of the C]:1iefJudge,
-37-
Court of Small Causes, Bangalom allowing the
under Section 27{2)(a) 83 {:3 of rm. Act. =
IN HRRP307/2007:
BETWEEN :
Smt. Mnniyamma
W/o Muniswamy
Old No.-103/5, Nagawaxapalyag,
Benniganahalli Bhakla L’ ‘
C.V. Raman Nagar Post.
Bangalaore-56{) (H3. H ‘Petitioner
(By Sri ma. m@;;é;1y;’~Adx%;L¥;
AND:
1. Somash@ka;:_1f;_ ._
S/o~Man3’wafhaVVl * ll
Na,.340,6fiscm;:s .
vivckauanda 1- ‘
Udayangagar, Post
BangéiQ_re~§6O _0 16.” _
=5] “”
W , No._34G, R~,’_o in a porflmn
” T cg 140.103/5
133fA, Nagawarapalya
7 A Shame
Nagar Post
Bangalore-560 O93. “Respondents
Cf {Qy s. Shivaprasad, Adv., for R1;
H. Ramachandxa, Adv., for R2)
,3-
This HRRP is filed under %ct:ion.46(1) of the
Karnataka Rent Act I999 against the oxder dated
passed in mm: 140.342/2002 on the tile of the ch;¢:}gg¢ge, V
Court of Small Causes, Bangalore afiowing .
under Section 27(2)(a) Er. (r) of RR.
IN HRRP.306/2007:
BETWEEN 2
Smt. Mumyamma
W10 Muniswamy V I _ V I
Old No.1{)3/5, Nagawarétpaiya. ;
Benmganahalli Eihakie <
C.V. Raman Nagax Post.-V" . Y
Bangalorr;:~56Q I ' ,,Pet1t1oner
(By Sri rue". .M:%;;fi};y,_33dv.,)
AND: A ._
1-
S/av-Amanjunaflia %
No.340,”5’h ”
Vivekaizamla Street ” _
Udayanagai, Dootvaxuhagar Post
,.§3angalom~S6.Q 016.
.4
T R; a”p§)1’t1o11 of the
Nb. 133/A
‘V ‘Om No;1;a3;s, Nagawarapalya
Dhakle
C..V.Ra1nan Nagar Post
_ Ban,galore~56O 093. ..Rcspond¢nts
S. Shivaprasad, Adv., for R 1)
Udayanagar, Doorvasainagar Post
015.
~ ‘ Rmperty No.103/5
Hflid No.133/A of Nagawarapalya
This HRRP is filed under section.46(;.;..V’_{»-:;f..,_the
Karnataka Rent Act 1999 against the order dated.’
passed in HRC 910.341/2002 on the file of th:§_f’cra:;¢r’;§i:d€g¢, u
Court of Small Causes, Bangalon:
under Section 27(2)(a) 85(1) of K.R}_AC:t.._ j; ‘
IN HRRPBQQ/2007:
BETWEEN :
Smt. Mumyamma
W/o Muniswamy * _ f ‘
Old No.I03/5, N.-agawaragéalyja ”
C.V. Rama; Post? _ _ . V
b “Petitioner
{By Szti’H;R:}§fiafit§}3aic’rfi§sh1ia; :?~2:~m1iy, A(iv.,)
AND :1
1. Somasizckar ‘. ;
Sfo Manjamathéa
190.3219, sthcmss _
‘- uVive:i:ana;1da
S] o .-.Kb1.<=u1'3daiah
Aged about 50 years
T R/cyan a portion ofthe
& Dhakke
'AN13_.».-i, V
C.V. Raman Nagar Post
Bangalore-560 093. ..Rcspo;1d§§i2£S'–
(By Sri S. Shivaprasad, Adv., for R1;
Sri H. Ramachandra, Adv., for R2)
This HRRP is filed undci' ""Se:c:io:a,4<s(i§;_'
Kamataka Rent Act 1999 against tlic ciiiiéf
passed in I-{RC No.344/ 2002 on-gas cit' tV1acTV';c:;i':.ic2fiJV;1«::ge;
Court of Small Causes, filed
under Section 27(2)(a) Mg of KR'. -Apt. " '
MIsc.cIvIL.14se/2@ "
BETWEEN :
W/o Muniswamy. :f «. ¢
Old No.1v03/S,VP§aga¢;?ara’- ya ” ”
Bermiganahalli Raman Nagar Post
BangaIoI’#:_:–560 . .’.Petitioner
(By Sri H.R:’ Mufihy, Adv.,)
1 :3am9Shai:*§r”V.
3/o?A?\a a1;juna:tt;.a
2 N’o,+340′, 6*’?
Vivekananda Stnmt
Uciayaxlagaér, Dooxvaninagar Post
Bangalcire-566 015.
ksémdamma
Riv in a portion of the
‘ No.I()3/5, Nagawarapalya
-11..
Benmganahalli Dhakie
C.V. Raman Nagar Post
Ba.nga1ore–560 D93.
. (By Sri S. Shivaprasad, Adv, for R1)
This Mia-c.Civi1 is filed ordelhx; V4151-eagle,
Kamataka Rent Act, 1999, praying in
the documents maintaiaed, the _vVqf_.§the _ u
judgment passed in 0.S.No.6809/1997,”‘ eatee 12.5.2008
and the copy of the plain: i:;1.cn.s.No.e3e9;..1997, as
addltionai evidence. ‘ 5
The above ‘HFIRRPS Civil coming on
for final .. the fo1EoWi11g:-
The mfdere Vfbassed by the Chief Judge,
Smajlg Bangamre in HRC.Nos.343/2002,
545/2002, 343/2002 345/2002, 342/2002,
344/2002, are questioned in these
V . revision pefifiens.
‘ V. Somashekar (first respondent in these revision
e hefitions claiming to be the landlord of the premises in
M
. .Resp0fideij~i;§ ~ .,
_ 32-
question filed HRC.Nos. 343/2002, 344/2002,
345/2002, 343/2002 345/2002, 342/2002, 341/2002,
and 344 / 2002, against the tenants
Smt.Mun1’ya;m1na. According to Somashekar,
purchased the property under a _
from Muniyappa represented
Holder Smt.Gowmmm::a oz1_:9:7.
none other than the mother ‘I’Th§us, it is
clear that under the
saie deed
3} M in HRC petitions
on the gonad that they
are not: the 11.1″-xdef Somashekar, but they are the
. V. Sniflliiiiuiiyamma. In other words, all the
the petitions (respondent No.1 in each of
the-~__ ‘.;A§’metitioI1) disputed the jural zelationship
Lthe parties. Smt.IvfuI1iyamma is the second
-_ 1*eSpai1dent in all the HRC petitions. She has also
/\/>
– 13 _
disputed the titie of Somashekar by contending th_at the
sale deed executed by Gowramma as Power of
Holder is not binding on her and that
alleged owner of the property__thas’ the ‘ V
Power of Attorney empowering to
the sake deed in favourtptof’ 1 to’-
Muniyamma, her fame;-m»§aa;Viv§z§;–~ is the
original owner of me as the said
the year 1982.
He had and Muniyappa.
HRC petitions viz.,
Muniswamy. According to
is the owner of the property
.’ V. * riot. “her bfi§tIier~iI1~1aw Muniyappa. In efiect,
in HRC petitions viz., Muniyamma also
disputed §?tt1e ownership of Somashekar. As
aforetnentioned, Somashekar filed five eviction petitions
«’ Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act,’ 1999
JV/x
-14-
against five tenants. In the said eviction petitions.-,.__the
question of jural relationship was «mix
respondents therein. However, the
negatived the contention raised ‘t’i’.:e_
as Muniyamma and he1d_
landlord. of the property. neid V
that the landlord has .fiden’eed for the
property in question.
4. ‘I’h__e~ ofj_:tj_te….of.:’Son§esnekhar is the sale
deed d” deed executed by
Gowranzgma, to” be the Power of Attorney
Holder of It is not in dispute that
_ A’ Gov; isxthe molsher of Somashekar. According to
S:’oIr;ash_ek§tr.:’E~iuni3Iappa executed Power of Attorney in
favotzr of 7f301?;’I’amma empowering her to execute the
fsale turn, Smt.Gowramma has executed the
V’ “deed in favour of Somashekar. But in this matter,
the Power of Attorney executed by Muniyappa in favour
fix!/>
-15-
of Gowramma is neither produced nor
Somashekhar did not choose to examine
at all Muniyappa has executed the Powerlof i
Somashekar would not
Muriiyappa or at least to produce of ,
Attorney. In the absence of of record,
it Cannot definitely’ ‘ had
empowered Under such
could not
have been spoil’
is of Muniyamma (second
respondenxi: of petitions) that the property
= ._ belorilgxed—–to Muniveerappa, who purchased
the year 1982. The said Muniveerappa
hsd viz., Muniswamy and Muniyappa.
is the husband of Muniyamma, According
an area of about 3% guntas of the
i’ in question is given to her by her fatherdn.-law
–
45,
in lieu of her maintenance after the death of her
husband Muniswamy. Thus,’ according to E1cr;_”fls:he
mcame the absoiute owner in View of Sectionv
Hindu Succession Act. Thus, according
firstly her brother~in«1aw ‘no;
standi to sell the Ioropertgr to heI_’.,
Muniyappa had not of v’A2A51tfV;o1*I1ey in
favour of Gowramma, seriously
disputes the 311″ ‘4g’ of over
the properzlyx
It ‘is at this stage itself that
Muniyamimg gag O.S.No.1143/ 1998 against
«manent injunction. The said suit
ce§Iine Which means that respondent No.2
HRC petitions viz., Mumy’ ‘ amma was in
‘gpossceeiozav of the property lawfully at least since 1988.
5f”:;also Somashekar filed O.S.No.6807/1997, for
” ifijijunction against his vendor, before 1733 Additional
2’?
},\/8
.1′;..
City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore City, which
came to be dismissed by the judment and
12.6.2008. These facts also make it ampiy-~…c1e;gu{e§at’T _
. Somashekar was not in pi’
lawfully at any point of ti_n1_e. In”t’1e sa’i€:i..’.sI.1éit,
O.S.No.6807/1997 filed by his
vendor, has pieaded Of 1′-ht?
property the property
and “ca1;tentio:ns are not
accepted suit. It is also
relevarfie _ Court during the
course lei’ has observed
that §.i1e_saie in favour of Somashekar
the absence of the Power of
executed by Muniyappa. The vendor
_ of viz, Muniyappa is examined in
e “f e.s..N§.eso7/ 1997. The vendor of Somashekar has
deposed that he has never executed the
M
-13..
Power of Attorney in favour of a, autlzofizing
her to do all the acts in respect of the
property. Thus, the Civil Court after
material on record, has obsewedthwthat is
rely upon the sale deed in
excluded from considera.tioIi’;’t’e»1Tjo otl1ei*.;Vfe1~iz$;blev;41t£atefia1 ‘V
is produced by Som;§tsheké\t”‘V_to:’:.pa;ove faeie
right, title or interest oyef question.
7. is_ the notice of the
its judgment in
‘ the pendency of these
revision “Ttitus, the cert1fi’ ed copy of the
.__paseedf..i:Q«0.S.No.68O7/1997 is sought to be
313306] 2007 praying permission to lead
eiztidenoe by producing the copy of the
judmgeitzt and decree passed in O.S.No.6807/1997.
“ii the Trial Court did not have an opportunity of
the judgment of the Civil Court in
/L53
-19-
O.S.No.680?’/ 1997, in my consideved opinion,”
of justice will m met if the matter is
Court for fresh disposal by allowing the .,
by the pcfitioners hemin for
evidence. Even othe1’wise,.th___is finds’ >
Court has not assigied iieoming to
the conclusion. It the material on
record while coming The approach of
the Trial judgment runs to
the pleadings and
depositioniii has not done any other
exercises. the Trial Court has failed to
Ilofitjt that A relied upon by Somashekar
it have been accepted in the absence of Power of
View of the matter, interest of justice
the matter is re-hmrd by the Trial’ Court.
H K Aceourdwihgly, the following order is made:–
W/B
-20-
The judgments and orders passed by the V_C_hief
Judge, Small Causes _Court,
HRC.Nos.343/ 2002, 344/ 2002, 345/ 2002}: H ‘ ._
345/2002, 342/2002, 341/2002;’ am; A
‘ dated 6.9.2007, are set aside.
the Court below for ‘I ‘V
No. 1466/2009 filed leading
additional evidejxoe i$,,_ Court is
directed to evfidmce
and en merits without in
any wzey by the observations made
– during the L
– _ i”R,eLsA§ision “#36115 are disposed ofaceordingly.
$64 ‘”
sow