Karnataka High Court
R. Gangamma vs R. V. Someswaran on 19 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:32093
RFA No. 2446 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2446 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
R. GANGAMMA
REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER
R.M. RANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI R. RANGANNA
R/AT FLAT NO.405, 4TH FLOOR,
13TH CROSS, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
SRI PRIYA RESIDENCY,
1ST PHASE, J.P. NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560078.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANIAN K.B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. R.V. SOMESWARAN,
MAHALAKSHMI B M S/O LATE SRI VENUGOPAL,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/AT NO.41-K, 19TH B MAIN,
1ST BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010.
2. M.J. NARAYANASA
S/O LATE SHRI JANARDHANSA,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED LECTURER,
AGE: 71 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1, T D LANE,
2ND CROSS,
COTTONPET,
BENGALURU-560053.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:32093
RFA No. 2446 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. B.A. PUSHPA
D/O M.J. NARAYANASA
MAJOR,
R/AT NO.1, T.D. LANE, 2ND CROSS,
COTTONPET, BENGALURU-560053.
4. M.N. MANJUNATHA
S/O M.J. NARAYANASA,
MAJOR,
R/AT NO.1, T.D. LANE,
2ND CROSS, COTTONPET,
BENGALURU-560053.
5. M.N. ANUSUYA
D/O M.J. NARAYANASA,
MAJOR,
R/AT NO.1, T.D. LANE,
2ND CROSS, COTTONPET,
BENGALURU-560053.
6. M.N. GEETHA
D/O M.J. NARAYANASA,
MAJOR,
R/AT NO.1, T.D. LANE,
2ND CROSS, COTTONPET,
BENGALURU-560053.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GIRIDHAR S.V., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-6
IS DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 18/07/2025)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1
OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.08.2024
PASSED IN O.S.NO.1959/2017 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT
FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:32093
RFA No. 2446 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present appeal is preferred by defendant No.1 assailing the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2024 passed in O.S.No. 1959/2017 on the file of I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for short).
2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and (i) declared that the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2016 passed in O.S.No.3084/2013 on the file of the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is not binding on the plaintiff (2) restrained the defendants from causing interference or obstruction to the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'B' property, until he is evicted under due process of law.
3. The suit is one for declaration that the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2016 passed in O.S.No. -4- NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR 3084/2013 on the file of V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is not binding on the plaintiff and further restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from schedule 'B' property under due process of law.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that schedule 'A' property was originally owned and possessed by one Muniramaiah, who executed a registered lease of deed dated 26.08.1985 in favour of one M.N.Prabha. As per the lease deed, the lease was for a period of 21 years commencing from 01.01.1986 and expiring on 31.12.2006. The lessee, M.N.Prabha, was entitled to construct a RCC building at her cost and let out various portions to tenants of her choice. Clause 23 provided that, upon expiry of the lease and on handing over possession of the building, the lessee shall attorn her tenancy in favour of the lessor and reimburse the lessor all the advance or deposit that might have been received from such tenants.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. M.N.Prabha constructed a commercial complex comprising ground and three upper floors and let out various portions to different tenants. On expiry of the lease, the tenants, including the plaintiff, would become tenants directly under Muniramaiah. It is stated that after demise of M.N.Prabha rent was paid to her husband M.J.Narayansa (defendant No.2). Muniramaiah died leaving a Will in favour of his daughter R.Gangamma (defendant No.1), who thereafter instituted O.S.3084/2013 against defendants No. 2 to 6 and others for possession. The said suit was decreed on 08.09.2016. It is stated that, defendants 6 and 7 who were arrayed in the said suit were namely Siddesh and Nagendra, were shown as proprietors of Sairam Enterprises and as occupants of the ground floor. It is stated by the plaintiff that Siddesh and Nagendra do not exist and that he himself has been a tenant of the ground floor since 1989. Defendant No.1, by arraying non-existent persons as parties, obtained a decree for ejectment behind the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR plaintiff's back and is attempting to execute it. It is asserted by the plaintiff that he cannot be dispossessed from 'B' schedule property except in due process of law.
6. Defendant No.1 (Gangamma), in her written statement, denied the plaint averments and contended that the father of defendant No.1 was the absolute owner and in possession of suit schedule 'A' property. Muniramaiah-father of defendant No.1 executed a registered Will in favour of defendant No.1, by virtue of which she succeeded to the property as its absolute owner. It is admitted that M.N.Prabha had taken the property on a registered lease deed dated 26.08.1985 from Muniramaiah for a period of 21 years, subject to certain terms and conditions. Defendant No.1 asserted that the lessee did not comply with the essential terms of lease, including the payment of agreed rent, thereby committing violation of the lease conditions. Consequently, late Muniramaiah instituted HRC Case No. 30/1991 for recovery of possession. However, in view of -7- NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 the HRC case was dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('T.P. Act' for short), Muniramaiah filed O.S.No. 2723/2002 seeking eviction of the original lessee and tenants, recovery of possession and arrears of rent. The said suit came to be decreed. The legal heirs of M.N.Prabha preferred RFA No. 1065/2010, which came to be remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration. Upon remand the trial Court, by order dated 02.07.2011, dismissed the suit on the ground that the lease period had already expired and a fresh suit was required to be filed for recovery of possession. Defendant No.1 preferred RFA No. 1877/2012 challenging the said judgment and decree. In the course of the proceedings in O.S. No. 2723/2002, defendant No.1 was permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Accordingly, O.S.No. 3084/2013 was instituted seeking possession of the property, contending that no further -8- NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR lease agreement was executed by M.N.Prabha or her legal heirs after the expiry of the original lease dated 26.08.1985. It is the specific stand of defendant No.1 that the lease period had long since expired and no subsisting tenancy existed thereafter.
7. In order to substantiate his claim, plaintiff examined himself as PW1, marked documents at Exs.P1 to P12; the power of attorney holder of defendant No.1 was examined as DW1, however no documents were marked.
8. The trial Court upon consideration of Ex.P1-the original lease deed dated 28.11.1988 executed by M.N.Prabha in favour of the plaintiff for a period of 10 years and Ex.P11-the certified copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.3084/2013, found that while 13 tenants were named in the said suit, the plaintiff's name did not appear in the list of parties. On this basis, the trial Court concluded that the judgment and decree in O.S.3084/2013 was not binding on the plaintiff, as he was not a party to those proceedings, and accordingly decreed the suit, -9- NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR restraining the defendants form evicting the plaintiff except in due process of law.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the entire material on record.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the trial Court failed to apply the settled proposition of law that a sub-lessee is bound by a decree of possession obtained by the lessor against the lessee, irrespective of whether the sub-lease was created before or after the institution of the suit, provided the eviction is based on a ground which determines the sub-lessee's rights as well. It is argued that the decree for possession passed against a tenant in an ejectment suit is binding on any person claiming through the tenant and is executable against such person even if they were not party to the suit. The initiation of O.S.1959/2017 in the manner done, it is contended, amounts to an abuse of process.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR 10.1. In support of his contention, reliance is placed upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:
1. Jagadguru Gurushiddaswami Guru Gangadharswami Murusavirmath vs Dakshina Maharashtra Digambar Jain Sabha1 (Jagadguru)
2. Balvant N Viswamitra and Others vs Yadav Sadashiv Mule and Others2(Balvant)
3. Importers and Manufacturers Limited vs Pheroze Framroze Taraporewala3(Importers)
11. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-plaintiff, while supporting the judgment and decree of the trial Court, submits that defendants 6 and 7 in O.S.3084/2013 were wrongly described and the paragraphs 4, 6 and 9 of the plaint in O.S.No.3084/2013 do not indicate that defendants No. 6 and 7 were in 1 (1953) 2 SCC 378 2 (2004) 8 SCC 706 3 (1952) 2 SCC 728
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR occupation of the premises which is in fact occupied by the plaintiff. It is further contended that Ex.P7-the lease deed dated 26.08.1985 and more particularly clauses 21 and 23, and the provisions of Sections 111 (a), 112, 116 of the T.P. Act, have not been complied with, and the notice issued was defective and not in conformity with Section 106 of the T.P. Act. Reliance is placed on Ex.P1-the lease deed between M.N.Prabha and the plaintiff to contend that the said document clearly indicate that defendants 6 and 7 were not in possession of the premises where the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant. Learned counsel further points to the lease deed Ex.P7, highlighting the pre- existing understanding that all tenants of schedule 'A' property of various tenements would continue as tenants under Muniramaiah and, in view of his last will and testament, subsequently under defendant No.1.
12. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the points that arises for consideration is,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR
(i) Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2016 in OS.3084/2013 is not binding upon the plaintiff on the ground that he was not a party to the said proceedings?
(ii) Whether a sub-lessee, whose sub-lease had already expired, can independently challenge the binding nature of a decree for possession obtained by the lessor against the original lessee and other tenants?
(iii) Whether the present suit filed by the plaintiff
seeking to declare the decree in
O.S.3084/2013 as not binding amounts to abuse of process of law when both the main lease and the sub-lease had already come to an end prior to the institution of the said suit?
13. All the points for consideration are taken up together in order to avoid repetition of facts.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR
14. The admitted fact is that the original lease deed dated 26.08.1985 was executed by the lessor Muniramaiah in favour of M.N.Prabha for a fixed term of 21 years commencing from 01.01.1986 and expiring on 31.12.2006. Further it is admitted that the plaintiff was inducted in the premises only under the sub-lease dated 28.11.1988 executed by M.N.Prabha, the lessee under the original lease deed dated 26.08.1985. Once it is accepted that the plaintiff derived possession only through M.N.Prabha, he necessarily claims through lessee. The said lease deed dated 26.08.1985 permitted the lessee to induct tenants in portions of the building, subject to the stipulations of clause 23, which expressly provided that, upon expiry of the lease and handing over possession, the tenancy of such occupants would be attorned to the lessors and all advance/deposits received by the lessee from them would be reimbursed to the lessor. In pursuance of this clause the lessee executed a sub-lease dated 28.11.1988 in favour of the present plaintiff for a
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR period of ten years which expired in 1999. Thus, both the sub-lessee and the original lease had expired long before the institution of O.S.3084/2013.
15. It is settled law as laid down in Jagadguru (supra) that a sub-lessee is bound by a decree for possession obtained by the lessor against the lessee, irrespective of whether a sub-lease was created before or after the suit, provided the ground for eviction determines the sub-lessee's rights as well.
16. In Balvant (supra) the Apex Court held at para 28 as under :
"28. In Rupchand Gupta v. Raghvanshi (Pvt.) Ltd. and Another, AIR (1964) SC 1889 an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. An application for setting aside the decree was made by the sub- tenant by invoking the provisions of Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia contending that the decree was collusive inasmuch as the sub- tenant was not joined as party defendant. The
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR decree was, therefore, liable to be set aside. Repelling the contention, this Court observed:
"It is quite clear that the law does not require that the sub-lessee need be made a party. It has been rightly pointed out by the High Court that in all cases where the landlord institutes a suit against the lessee for possession of the land on the basis of a valid notice to quit served on the lessee and does not implead the sub-lessee as a party to the suit, the object of the landlord is to eject the sub- lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate. The decree in such a suit would bind the sub-lessee. This may act harshly on the sub-lessee; but this is a position well understood by him when he took the sub- lease. The law allows this and so the omission cannot be said to be an improper act."
17. In the present case, it is not in dispute that defendants No. 8 and 13 in O.S.3084/2013 were admittedly one of the tenants in occupation of a portion of the suit schedule property and contested the suit by filing written statement. In this suit, defendants 8 and 13 categorically admitted that defendants 6 and 7 were in occupation of different portions of the schedule property,.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR Thus the contention of the present plaintiff that defendants 6 and 7 were 'fictitious persons' stands contradicted by the very admission of a contesting tenant in the earlier suit. When the contesting defendants in O.S.3084/2013 admitted their status as tenants and acknowledged occupation of defendants 6 and 7 in different portions, it cannot be said that the decree was obtained by fraud or suppression. The plaintiff has accepted that he derives possession only through M.N.Prabha and necessarily claims through the lessee. Thus, in light of the settled proposition of law, the decree of possession in O.S.3084/2013 is binding on the plaintiff and the finding recorded by the trial Court that the decree in O.S.3084/2013 is not binding solely on the ground that his name does not figure in the array of defendants is unsustainable.
18. The plaintiff therefore, had no subsisting tenancy rights and was only a hold over without the consent of the lessor. The sub-lease dated 28.11.1988 was for a period
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR of ten years and expired in the year 1989. The original lease dated 28.11.1985 itself expired on 31.11.2006. A sub-lessee whose sub-tenancy expired cannot claim a better title than the original lessee. Once the lessee's rights stand determined by a decree, the sub-lessee cannot independently resist execution of such a decree. The trial Court totally over-looked this fundamental principle and wrongly carved out an exception in favour of the plaintiff.
19. In the context of argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-plaintiff, Sections 111, 112 and 116 of T.P. Act do not advance his case because his tenancy stood extinguished by efflux of time and no assent of the lessor was shown thereafter. Neither Section 106 of T.P. Act has any application since the term lease had expired when O.S.3084/2013 was filed, a fresh notice as contended by the respondent-plaintiff is unnecessary.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR
20. This Court is of the clear view that the present suit is nothing but an abuse of process of law. By the time O.S.3084/2013 was instituted, both sub-lease and the original lease had expired. Clause 23 of the original lease stipulated that, upon expiry of the lease all tenants inducted by M.N.Prabha would attorn to the lessor. Therefore the plaintiff's right of occupation if any, stood automatically referable to the lessor. Despite this, the plaintiff sought to obstruct the execution of a valid decree by filing a fresh suit claiming that he was not impleaded earlier. Such a plea is legally untenable because a decree against a lessee binds all persons claiming through lessee. The contention that the fictitious persons were impleaded as defendants 6 and 7 is contradicted by the admission of defendants No.8 and 13 in O.S.3084/2013, who specifically acknowledged their occupation of the portions of the schedule property. Thus the present proceedings are clear attempt to delay and frustrate the fruits of a valid decree, amounting to mis-use of judicial process.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR
21. For the foregoing reasons, the points framed for consideration are answered and this Court pass the following :
ORDER
(a) The Regular First Appeal is allowed.
(b) The judgment and decree dated 05.08.2024 passed in O.S.No. 1959/2017 on the file of I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside.
(c) The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed on payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks.
(d) It is declared that the judgment and decree
dated 08.09.2016 passed in
O.S.No.3084/2013 on the file of the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Benglauru, is binding upon the plaintiff and
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32093 RFA No. 2446 of 2024 HC-KAR is executable against him in accordance with law.
(e) The present suit instituted by the plaintiff is a total abuse of process of law.
Sd/-
____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA Ckl/-
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1