Karnataka High Court
Shri Manik S/O Govindswami Goudar vs Smt. Irawwa W/O Siddappa Sakrigol on 28 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16748
CRP No. 100019 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100019 OF 2024 (SC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI MANIK S/O GOVINDSWAMI GOUDAR,
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. #880, A.K. DESHPANDE GALLI,
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590 001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. IRAWWA W/O SIDDAPPA SAKRIGOL,
AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. AZAD GALLI, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590 001.
2. SHRI. MAHANTESH SIDDAPPA SAKRIGOL,
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. AZAD GALLI, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590 001.
3. SHRI. RAVI SIDDAPPA SAKRIGOL,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
KATTIMANI
R/O. AZAD GALLI, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590 001.
Location:
HIGHCOURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD ... RESPONDENTS
BENCH
DHARWAD (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, 1908,
PRAYING THAT THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
17.11.2023 PASSED IN SMALL CAUSE NO.22/2012 BY THE LEARNED I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BELAGAVI, WHEREIN THE SAID SMALL CAUSE SUIT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS HEREIN FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION AND WITH
MESNE PROFIT DECREED, BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS CIVIL
REVISION PETITION AND THEREBY CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE
SAID SMALL CAUSE CASE NO.22/2012 WITH COST, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16748
CRP No. 100019 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This petition is filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2023 passed in Small Cause No.22/2012 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would raise the following contentions;
a. The Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the prayer sought is for possession and not for ejectment; b. The petitioner was the tenant under the respondents' father and the tenancy was only -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16748 CRP No. 100019 of 2024 HC-KAR for 5 years and thereafter, the tenancy has not been extended;
c. After expiry of five years, the respondents' father executed an agreement for sale on 04.01.2001; and the suit for specific performance of contract is pending consideration and in addition, respondents' father had executed an unregistered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has put up a structure in the petition property.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Wajid Vs A.S.Onkarappa1.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the title of the respondents is not in dispute. It is also admitted that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondents' father. Even if it is assumed 1 2011 (4) Kar. L.J. 414 (FB).
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16748 CRP No. 100019 of 2024 HC-KAR that the father has executed an agreement for sale or unregistered sale deed, that does not take away the status of the petitioner as a tenant holding over after expiry of the lease period.
6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.
7. Though learned counsel the petitioner would submit that the plaintiff has not sought ejectment but has sought for possession, the Court is of the view after considering the plaint averments that, plaintiffs have clearly stated that the petitioner was a tenant under their father and the status of holding over is not changed and the defendant/petitioner has not occupied the property in any other different capacity, as such, the Court is of the view that the suit has to be construed as one for ejectment.
8. Thus, the contention that the suit is not maintainable, cannot be accepted. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16748 CRP No. 100019 of 2024 HC-KAR
9. The ratio laid down in the case of Abdul Wajid (supra) relied on by the counsel for the petitioner does not come to the aid of the petitioner.
10. The further contention that there was an agreement for sale and later an unregistered sale deed executed by the plaintiffs' father in favour of the petitioner, also does not come to the aid of the petitioner as agreement for sale does not alter the status of the petitioner as a tenant holding over who occupied the property as a tenant and was lawfully inducted into the possession of the property as a tenant for a period of 5 years.
11. As far as unregistered sale deed is concerned, same is inadmissible in evidence to consider the possession of petitioner as owner of the property.
12. If the suit for specific performance is pending and even if the decree for ejectment/possession is executed during the pendency of the said suit for -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16748 CRP No. 100019 of 2024 HC-KAR specific performance, and in case the petitioner succeeds in the suit, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the decree in a suit for specific performance of contract notwithstanding the decree for ejectment or execution of such decree.
13. Merely because the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, it should not be construed as having expressed anything on the merits of the claim of the petitioner in a suit for specific performance of contract. The same shall be decided based on the evidence to be adduced before the Court in the said suit.
14. The petition dismissed.
15. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM/-. CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36