Bangalore District Court
Krishna N vs Keshav Sutrave on 3 July, 2025
1 O.S.No. 6792/2022
KABC010281722022
Presented on : 20-10-2022
Registered on : 20-10-2022
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 3rd day of JULY, 2025
PRESENT: SMT. G.S.PRASEELA KUMARI, B.A.L,LLB.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU
O.S.No.6792/2022
PLAINTIFF : Sri. N. Krishna
Aged about 70 years
S/O Late Narayanswamy Goundar,
PARTNER OF M/S Venkateshwara
Textiles, Ground Floor, No. 92,
Dispensary Road, Bangalore-01.
(By Sri.DRB, Adv)
DEFENDANTS : 1. SRI. KESHAV SUTRAVE
S/o. Late Sri. S.Chandra Rao
Aged about 67 years
R/at. No. 605, 1st Main, Domlur
Layout, Bangalore-71.
2. SRI. NARAYAN SUTRAVE
S/o. Late Sri. S.Chandra Rao
aged about 67 years
No.605, 1st Main
Domlur Layout,
2 O.S.No. 6792/2022
Bangalore-71.
3. Smt. Prabhavathi Bai
S/o. Late Sri. S.Chandra Rao
Aged about 67 years
R/at. No. 605
1st Main Domlur Layout
Bangalore-71.
4. Sri. SHIVARAM SUTRAVE
S/o. Late Sri. S.Chandra Rao
Age about 67 years
R/at.No.605,
1st Main Domlur Layout
Bangalore-560071.
5. Sri. VENKATESH SUTRAVE
S/o. Late Sri. S.Chandra Rao
Major, R/at. No. 605
1st Main Domlur Layout,
Bangalore-71.
6. Smt. SULOCHANA BAI (dead)
R/at.No.605,
1st Main Domlur Layout
Bangalore-560071.
7. Smt. Sujatha
D/o. Late Sri.S.Chandra Rao
Major, R/at. No.605
1st Main Domlur Layout
Bangalore-71.
8. Smt. Lalitha
D/o. Late Sri. S.Chandra Rao
R/at.No.605,
1st Main Domlur Layout
Bangalore-560071.
9. Sri. Rajesh
S/o. Late Sri.S.Chandra Rao
3 O.S.No. 6792/2022
Major, R/at.No.605,
1st Main Domlur Layout
Bangalore-560071.
(By D1 & 6 - Abated,
D2 & 3 - Abated,
D4 & 5 - RSS
D7 to 9 - Exparte)
Date of Institution of the suit : 20-10-2022
Nature of the suit : INJUNCTION SUIT
Date of commencement of : 13-12-2024
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 03-07-2025
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
02 08 13
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
JUDGMENT
The Present suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly and illegally from tenanted suit schedule property and also from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
4 O.S.No. 6792/2022
2. The brief facts of the Plaintiff's case is as follows:-
In the plaint it is narrated that Sri.Chandra Rao husband and father of the defendant No.1 to 5 were born to the 1st wife of late C.S.Chandra Rao namely Smt.Shardabai was expired on 06-02-1963, after the death of Subhadra Bhai, Sri.C.S.Chandra Rao married one Smt.Sulochana Bai the 6th defendant herein and out of their wedlock two daughters were born who are none other than the defendant No.7 to 9. Sri.C.S.Chandra Rao is the absolute owner of property as shown in the plaint schedule, revenue records got mutated in his name. During his life time in the year 1990 he has demolished the said existing structure in schedule Property and also put up a Commercial Complex consisting of ground floor and first floor of Suit Schedule Property and he was in and enjoyment of the Suit Scheduled Property. During his life time, when the plaintiff approached and gave assurance to the plaintiff ready to let out the Suit Schedule property as rent or Lease, the plaintiff accepted the offer and thereafter entered into the registered lease deed dated 20-08-1990 in favour of the Plaintiff for a longer period of 30 years and on Monthly rent for the 5 O.S.No. 6792/2022 sum of Rs. 5000/- to be paid as rent on or before 10th day every succeeding rent. The expiry of a very 5 year, the rent Shall be enhanced by Rs.750/- p.m and the plaintiff had paid up to date rent till date which is also accepted by the plaintiff.
3. On the strength of the registered sale deed the Plaintiff herein is running a textile business after spending huge amount for the purpose of renovation and alterations of the suit property with the consent of owner for the purpose to improve his textile business in the suit schedule property. The defendant No.6 received the rent continuously after the death of C.S.Chandra Rao. After the death of Sri. C.S Chandra Rao his first wife children's ie the Defendant No.1 to 4 who filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the second wife and her children's ie the defendants No. 6 to 9, herein as well as the plaintiff and other tenants on the property let out by C.S.Chandra Rao who are the defendants in O.S.No.4912/1996. The defendants admitted that the plaintiff is a tenant of the Suit Schedule Property and also the defendants are admitted the plaintiff is in possession of the suit scheduled property as tenant on 6 O.S.No. 6792/2022 the basis of registered lease deed dated 20-08-1990, and their after the Hon'ble Ist Additional City Civil and Session Judge Bangalore (CCH- 02) partly decreed the suit on 22-07-2008.
4. Being aggrieved by that order the defendant No.1 to 4 challenged the Judgment and decree in O.S.No. 4912/1996 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in R.F.A No. 1058 / 2008 and the appeal was ended in compromise between the defendants dated 08-09-2022. Sri. Chandra Rao and defendant No.6 who are executed a registered lease deed dated 20-08-1990 in favour of the Plaintiff for the long period of 30 years the lease period ended on 20-08-2020 but during the pendency of the suit and appeal the 6th defendant received the monthly rent from the Plaintiff through cheque for Sum of Rs.8000/- and the plaintiff paid regularly rent to the 6th defendant, even the defendant No.6 and the other defendants are fully aware the Plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit schedule property as tenant, after compromise in RFA NO.1058/08 on 08-09-2022, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and defendant Nos.7 to 9 came to the suit schedule 7 O.S.No. 6792/2022 property and also threatened to vacate the tenanted suit schedule premises but the defendants cannot evict the plaintiff without due process of law. The defendants No.1 to 4 are very influential persons in the area with the support of local gangs are trying to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property and with some workers made a futile attempt to forcefully dispossess the workers and employees who work under the plaintiff of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff who happened to be at the scheduled property, at that time with great difficulty and with the help of the neighbors managed to send the defendants and his supporters away from the scheduled property who while retreating from the scheduled property threatened to come back with a bigger gang and attempt to forcefully dispossess the workers and employees in the Schedule property. Hence, prays for permanent injunction with damages as prayed in the plaint.
5. After the receipt of the suit summons defendant No.4 & 5 appeared before the court and also filed the written statement. Defendant Nos.1,2,3 and 6 8 O.S.No. 6792/2022 already abated. Defendant Nos.7 to 9 after receipt of the suit summons not appeared before the court. Hence, placed exparte.
6. In the written statement of the defendant No.4 admitted the relationship of defendant Nos.1 to 9. It is further admitted that suit before the concerned court was pending and thereafter was partly decreed. RFA.No.1058/2008 is also admitted by the defendant No.4 which ended in compromise decree but regarding the relation of the plaintiff with the defendants as a tenant denied as false. It is also further denied that none of the defendants had been to the suit schedule property and threatened to the plaintiff, made an attempt to evict from the suit schedule property. The cause of action is also denied as false, the entire plaint averments except the above said admissions is denied as false. It is stated by the defendant No.4 as per the terms and conditions of the Compromise petition the defendant No.4 along with other defendants have got final decree dated 2-12-2004 in FDP No.123/08 which is pending before the 1 st Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Even though the defendant No.4 is the owner of the property as 9 O.S.No. 6792/2022 per the compromise petition, the plaintiff herein has not come forward to pay the rent for use and occupation of the suit schedule property. Since last several years even prior to the suit the plaintiff is the user and occupier of the suit schedule property without paying the rents. In para No.11 of the written statement has admitted that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as a tenant. According to the defendant No.4 he already issued the legal notice dated 30-01-2025 terminating the tenancy of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and demanding to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the property to the defendant No.4, he has already taken the legal action against the plaintiff to evict from the suit schedule property with due process of law. In order to avoid the payment of rent to the defendant No.4 herein, plaintiff has come up with the present false suit. Defendant No.4 along with the other co-sharers acquired the suit schedule property as per the settlement entered in RFA.NO.1058/2008. Plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit in the interest of justice and equity. 10 O.S.No. 6792/2022
7. In support of the case of plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and also got marked Ex.P1 to P5. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4 not cross-examined PW.1 and also disputed the documents which got marked through PW.1.
8. On behalf of the defendants no oral and documentary evidence is adduced. On 04-04-2025 the defendant Nos.4 and 5 files memo stating that the plaintiff has filed suit for the relief of permanent injunction and not to dispossess him from the suit schedule property without due process of law against the defendants. The defendant No.4 and others have already filed suit for ejectment against the plaintiff in S.C.NO.300/2025 on the file of IX Additional Small Causes Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru. It is further submitted in the memo that in view of the ejectment suit filed by the plaintiff, suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of bare injunction shall not survive for further consideration in any manner whatsoever. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit as not maintainable.
11 O.S.No. 6792/2022
9. On the basis of the pleadings my learned predecessor in office has framed the following:-
ISSUES
1. Does the plaintiff proves that he is a tenant of suit schedule property under a registered lease deed dated 20.08.1990 ?
2. Does the plaintiff proves that the defendants have made an attempt to dispossess him from suit schedule property forcefully, thus they are to be restrained by way of perpetual injunction as sought in the suit, until dispossessing him by due process of law ?
3. What Order or decree?
10. My findings to above said issues are:-
Issue No.1: As Affirmative;
Issue No.2: As Affirmative;
Issue No.3: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
11. Issue Nos.1 and 2:
In this case the plaintiff has to prove that he is tenant in possession of the suit schedule property under registered lease deed dated 20-08-1990 and in 12 O.S.No. 6792/2022 issue No.2 the plaintiff has to prove that the defendants have made an attempt to dispossess him from the suit schedule property forcefully. Hence, he prays for the relief as prayed. By keeping in mind the burden lies upon the plaintiff in Issue Nos.1 and 2. On careful reading of the written statement filed by the defendant No.4 in para No.4 has admitted that, "The say of the Plaintiff as set out in Para No.5 of the plaint that, Sri. C.S. Chandra Rao the father of this Defendant approached the Plaintiff on due assurance to the Plaintiff to lease out the schedule property as a rent and the Plaintiff and C.S. Chandra Rao entered into Registered Lease Deed in respect of the suit property are true and correct."
In Para No.11, it is also admitted by the defendant No.4 which reads as under:-
The Plaintiff since the date of acquiring the co-ownership of the suit property by this Defendant has not even come forward to pay the rent for use and occupation of the suit schedule 13 O.S.No. 6792/2022 property. The Plaintiff since last several years and even prior to the above suit used and occupied the suit property unauthorizedly without paying rent. In this view of the matter, the Plaintiff is not entitled for any relief sought for by him against this Defendant. In para No.12, it is admitted that: It is submitted that, this Defendant already issued a legal notice dated: 30.01.2025 and terminating the tenancy of the Plaintiff over the suit property and demanding him to quit and deliver the vacant possession of suit property. Once this Defendant already taken the legal action under due course of law with necessary relief for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property from the Plaintiff, the above suit is certainly not survived for any further consideration at all.
12. Apart from the above said averments made in the written statement on careful perusal of Ex.P1 lease deed dated 20-08-1990 reflect that 14 O.S.No. 6792/2022 Sri.C.S.Chandra Rao entered into the lease agreement with N.Krishna who is none other the plaintiff herein in respect of the suit schedule property. In the document itself duration of the lease is shown as 30 years on a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- commencing from the date of execution of the lease deed on 22-08- 1990 and on expiry of every 5th year the rent shall be enhanced from Rs.750/- per month. The period of lease is 30 years from the date of Lease deed and no further renewal is allowed. Further, terms and conditions itself goes to show that the lease agreement entered into between the plaintiff and C.S.Chandra Rao is admitted by the defendant No.4 in the written statement as well as in the memo. Ex.P2, 3 are the electricity bills and payment receipts regarding the electricity connection to the suit schedule property. Ex.P4 are the photographs ( 4 in No.) along with the C.D. Ex.P5 reflect that the plaintiff is running a business in the suit schedule property, regarding the use and occupation of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff is denied by the defendant No.4.
15 O.S.No. 6792/2022
13. With respect to the interference, according to the plaintiff, the defendants No.1 to 4 on 13-10-2022 @ 3.00 p.m, with some workers made a futile attempt to forcefully dispossess the workers and employees working under the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that even the defendant Nos.3 and 4 also filed a false complaint on 13-10-2022 against the plaintiff before the Commercial Street Police Station and the police served a notice on 17-12-2022 for enquiry. The above said wordings in the plaint as well as in the evidence of PW.1 goes to show that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and other defendants had been to the suit schedule property and made an attempt to dispossess him from the suit schedule property. Regarding this in the written statement as well as in the memo filed, defendant No.4 contended that no such threatening or interference is made by the defendants because they have also filed suit against the plaintiff herein and also got issued a notice by terminating the relationship of tenant and ownership, after service of notice they have also approached the concerned 16 O.S.No. 6792/2022 jurisdiction court for eviction. On perusal of the certified copy of the order sheet in S.C.NO.300/25, certified copy of the plaint which is produced before this court by the defendant No.4 along with the memo dated 04-04-2025 itself goes to show that Vinutha Karlekar and Shivaram Sutrave have filed suit for ejectment against Krishna.N herein as well as Venkatesh Sutrave. Prayer in the plaint also reflect that directed the defendant No.1 ( who is none other than the plaintiff herein ) to quit and deliver to the plaintiff the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also with further directions to the defendant No.1 to pay to the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of suit by way of damages for use and occupation of the suit schedule property till such time, the defendant No.1 put the plaintiffs in vacant possession of the suit property.
14. As admitted by the defendant No.4 in the memo as well as in the written statement already got issued legal notice to the plaintiff herein on 30-01-2025 and also terminated the tenancy of the 17 O.S.No. 6792/2022 plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The suit for ejectment is also filed by the defendant No.4 with another defendant. When such being the case, the interference by the defendants is proved by the plaintiff but due to the filing of the suit for ejectment, the suit filed by the plaintiff herein against the defendant is maintainable till the defendants vacate the plaintiff from the suit schedule property with due process of law. Moreover the defendant No.4 is at liberty to obtain the order of ejectment in S.C.NO.300/2025. Till Order in that suit and till taken possession of the property in Execution Petition the present suit is maintainable and it survive for consideration. By keeping in mind, the admissions in the written statement as well the statement submitted by the defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the memo dated 04- 04-2025, the plaintiff has proved Issue Nos.1 and 2, in view of the above discussion, without any hesitation I answer Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
18 O.S.No. 6792/2022
15. ISSUE NO.3:- In view of the above discussions on Issue Nos.1 and 2 as Affirmative, in the result I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost.
The defendants are hereby
restrained from dispossessing the
plaintiff forcibly and illegally from the tenanted suit schedule property and also from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, without due process of law.
Office to draw decree accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 3 rd day of JULY 2025.) (G.S.PRASEELA KUMARI) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: Sri.N.KRISHNA
19 O.S.No. 6792/2022
(b) Defendant's side :
NIL
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff' side :
Ex.P.1 Lease deed dt 22.08.1990
Ex.P.2 Cash receipt.
Ex.P.3 Bescom Bill.
Ex.P.4 4 Photographs
Ex.P.5 CD
(b) Defendants side :
NIL
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
20 O.S.No. 6792/2022