Karnataka High Court
M/S. Muthoot Finance Limited vs Mr. Nagesh Kumar. C. A on 20 August, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:32524
RSA No. 335 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.335 OF 2024 (EJE)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED
HEAD OFFICE AT MUTHOOT CHAMBERS,
OPP. SARITHA THEATER COMPLEX,
BANGERI ROAD,
KOCHI-682 018,
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
SRI. AJUMON P GEORGE.
2. M/S. MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED
NO.552/1 AND 646,
BALAJI BUILDING,
GANGAGUDI ROAD,
D.D. URS ROAD BRANCH,
MYSURU-570 001,
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
Digitally SRI. AJUMON P GEORGE.
signed by ...APPELLANTS
MALATESH
KC (BY SRI ANISH JOSE ANTONY, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. MR. NAGESH KUMAR. C. A.
S/O LATE MR. ASHWATHANARAYANA.C.K.,
NO.97, KABIR ROAD,
MANDI MOHALLA,
MYSURU-570 001.
2. MR. KALAI NAGESH. C
W/O. NAGESH KUMAR,
NO. 97, KABIR ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:32524
RSA No. 335 of 2024
HC-KAR
MANDI MOHALLA,
MYSURU-570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(VIDE ORDER DATED 07.08.2025 R1 AND R2 CALLED OUT
ABSENT)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 20.11.2023 PASSED IN R.A NO.11/2023 ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2022 PASSED IN O.S.
NO.118/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Anish Jose Antony, learned counsel for the appellants. Respondents though served with notice, remained absent.
2. Defendants' Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.118/2017 dated 22.08.2022 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, confirmed in R.A.No.11/2023 dated 20.11.2023 on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, for ejectment and consequential relief.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:32524 RSA No. 335 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. Suit of the plaintiffs on contest, came to be decreed as under:
"(a) The suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed at cost of Rs.2,000/-.
(b) The defendants are directed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.4,92,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of suit till its complete realization.
(c) The separate enquiry is conducted for ascertaining future mesne profits.
(d) The business status of O.S.No.1350/2016 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mysore, is taken from CIS and same is kept in this file.
(e) Draw the decree accordingly."
4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.11/2023.
5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the parties in detail and dismissed the appeal of the defendants and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Judge.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:32524 RSA No. 335 of 2024 HC-KAR
6. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court in this Second Appeal on the following grounds:
"The Judgment and Decree passed by the 1st appellate Court is opposed to the factual aspects included in the matter and the settled principles of law. Hence the same need to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.
No reasons much less than any valid reason are assigned by the 1st appellate Court for confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence the same is required to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.
The 1st appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that the document marked as Exhibit P25 is a lease agreement for a period of 15 years and as per Section 107 of Transfer of Properties Act, every lease agreement above a year need to be mandatorily registered.
The 1st appellate Court also failed to appreciate the fact that under Section 49 of Registration Act, the unregistered document, which is mandatorily to be registered, cannot be marked as an evidence in any proceedings.
The 1st appellate Court also failed to appreciate the fact that the defendants have taken specific contention that the Ext P-25 agreement is unregistered before the Trial -5- NC: 2025:KHC:32524 RSA No. 335 of 2024 HC-KAR Court and is recorded by the Hon'ble Trial Court in paragraph No.9(a) of the Judgment.
It is further submitted that the 1st appellate Court is also failed to appreciate the fact that the lease agreement is entered in a Rs.2/- stamp paper and is insufficiently stamped.
It is further submitted that the 1st appellate Court is failed to appreciate that the defendants have issued notice dated 3.11.2014 stating that the defendants are vacating the schedule premises and the plaintiff is duty bound to arrange the vacating of the schedule premises, within the period of 3 months, as per Clause 11 of the Agreement.
It is most respectfully submitted that by mere reading of Judgment and Decree the Judgment and Decree dated 22.8.2022 passed in O.S. No.118/2017 by the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judgment and CJM, Mysuru, and the Judgment and Decree dated 20.11.2023 passed in RA No.11 of 2023, on the files of the 2nd Additional District And Session's Judge, Mysuru is erranous and needed to be setaside."
7. Following substantial questions of law are framed in the present Second Appeal.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:32524 RSA No. 335 of 2024 HC-KAR "1. Whether the unregistered agreement, which is required to be registered under Section 107 of Transport of Property Act, can be marked by the Trial Court in violation of Section 49 of Registration Act in an eviction suit.
2. Whether the 1st appellate Court justified in not impounding the insufficiently stamped Ext.P-25 agreement."
8. Sri Anish Jose Antony, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that as per the decree Rs.4,92,800/- has already been deposited before the Executing Court and Execution Petition is pending.
9. He would further contend that the contentions urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that the defendants did not vacate the premises as is contended by them in the written statement was accepted by Trial Court which was mechanically approved by the First Appellate Court. Same is incorrect in view of the admission made by the plaintiffs in the plaint itself.
10. He would invite the attention of the Court to the fact that the contention of the plaintiffs that the 'strong room' was still in existence and therefore vacating the premises in the eye of law -7- NC: 2025:KHC:32524 RSA No. 335 of 2024 HC-KAR is technically incorrect which has been wrongly taken note of by both the Courts resulting in miscarriage of justice and therefore the appeal needs to be admitted.
11. In the case on hand, having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court bestowed its best attention to the rival contents of the parties.
12. Admittedly the appellants being the defendants were tenants under the plaintiffs and were running a Financial Institution in the name and style-'Muthoot Finance Limited', in the premises.
13. For the purpose of securing the valuables of the Company, there was a 'strong room' installed by the defendants in the premises.
14. According to the written statement of the defendants, they vacated the premises on 03.11.2014 by issuing a notice as per the terms of the agreement.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:32524 RSA No. 335 of 2024 HC-KAR
15. In the substantial question of law, validity of the notice under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act is sought to be re-appreciated.
16. He also contended that Ex.P-25/lease agreement was insufficiently stamped and therefore both the Courts ought not to have relied on the said agreement for imposing the interest at rate of 6 percent per annum on the amount due.
17. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
18. On such perusal, even though the agreement of lease is insufficiently stamped and no action has been taken by both the Courts, fact remains that the term of lease mentioned in the agreement got terminated by issuing the notice. Plaintiffs have approached the Court of law for the plaint relief on the basis of issuing the notice under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:32524 RSA No. 335 of 2024 HC-KAR
19. Written statement contents itself shows that defendants had also issued the notice and thereafter vacated the premises on 03.11.2014.
20. Whether handing over the possession of the property by the defendants without properly demolishing the 'strong room' etc. could be treated as the valid possession to the plaintiff was the subject matter before the Trial Court.
21. Therefore, Trial Court rightly recorded a finding that existence of 'strong room' in the suit property shows that defendant had not vacated the premises on 03.11.2014 and rightly determined the mesne profits and the interest at the rate of six percent per annum.
22. Learned Trial Court had the power to grant six percent interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
23. Therefore, dehors the contractual terms in the form of lease agreement though insufficiently stamped vide Ex.P-25, the decree of the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference in this Appeal.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32524 RSA No. 335 of 2024 HC-KAR
24. Accordingly the following:
ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64