Bangalore District Court
Vignesh K G vs Sumalatha on 12 January, 2026
KABC010056072024
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-19).
DATED: THIS THE 12th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026.
PRESENT:
SRI. SATHISHA L.P., B.A., LL.B.
XCI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge &
Spl. Judge for KPIDFE Cases., Bengaluru.
C/C VII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S. No.1582/2024
PLAINTIFF : Mr. Vignesh K.G
S/o Kinhanna Shetty
aged about 30 years
R/at 1st Floor, D.No.37
1st Cross, 2nd Main,
Phothalappa Garden
Adugodi, D.T-
Bangalore-Karnataka.
(By Sri.K.S.N.R., Advocate)
V/S
DEFENDANT : Mrs. Sumalatha
W/o Suresh K
Aged about 42 years,
D.No.11A, Bangalore
Diary Quarters,
D.R. College Post,
Bangalore-560029.
(By Sri.A.C., Advocate)
2 OS.No.1582/2024
Date of institution of Suit 29-02-2024
Nature of the Suit Injunction Suit
Date of commencement 16-04-2025
of recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 12-01-2026
was pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
01 10 15
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is before this Court for the following relief:
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, her men, servants, agents, etc., from dispossessing the plaintiff from the schedule premises without due process of law, costs of the suit, and such other further reliefs as may be deemed necessary under the circumstances of the case. In the suit, it is contended that the plaintiff is a businessman, occupying himself in the business of selling milk products of Nandini (KMF). The plaintiff has been running his business since 18-08-2022. The defendant is the registered distributor of Nandini products, and she offered the plaintiff to let out the Nandini outlet situated inside the compound of the BDA Complex, more fully described in the 3 OS.No.1582/2024 schedule, stating that she was not in a position to run the business.
2. The plaintiff agreed for the same, and after mutual discussion, it was agreed that the plaintiff shall pay a monthly rent of ₹25,000 to the defendant and also pay a security deposit of ₹2,00,000. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid a sum of ₹1,00,000 in cash on 18-08-2022, ₹50,000 on 13-10-2022, and ₹50,000 on 18-11-2022 by UPI payment as security deposit. At that time, the plaintiff requested the defendant to execute a rent agreement. The defendant assured the plaintiff that she would get the rent agreement prepared as early as possible. However, on receipt of the security deposit, the defendant handed over possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff started his business. In spite of repeated requests, the defendant did not come forward to execute the rent agreement. It was mutually agreed between the plaintiff and defendant that the lease period shall be till the expiry of the registered distribution license from KMF. Hence, the plaintiff is in possession of the premises on an oral lease. The plaintiff is regular in payment of monthly rent to the 4 OS.No.1582/2024 defendant. The invoices from KMF are raised in the name of the defendant, since she is the registered distributor. The plaintiff himself is raising the indent and making payment to KMF regularly, even though invoices are issued in the name of the defendant.
3. The plaintiff further submits that from 18-08-2022, he is in possession of the premises. The plaintiff is regular in payment of rent and also making payments regularly to KMF with regard to the invoices raised by KMF for supply of Nandini products, and he is also providing quality services to customers. Hence, the business has improved a lot, and the services and investments made by the plaintiff have created goodwill in the area.
4. The defendant, having observed that the business has grown and income has increased because of the plaintiff, thought of continuing the business herself by forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the schedule premises. Hence, on 20-02- 2024, the defendant and her persons claiming to be her agents directed the plaintiff to vacate the premises before the 5 OS.No.1582/2024 end of the month. The plaintiff tried to convince the defendant, stating that he had invested huge amounts and that the business had only recently improved. However, to the shock and surprise of the plaintiff, the defendant and her men threatened that if the plaintiff did not vacate the premises on or before 29-02-2024, they would come with more men and goondas and forcibly dispossess the plaintiff and take possession of the schedule premises.
5. Thereafter, the defendant and her men left the premises, stating that they would come again in the first week of March 2024 and forcibly evict the plaintiff from the schedule premises. The plaintiff is paying monthly rent regularly and is not in a position to withstand the high-handed and illegal acts of the defendant. The plaintiff is not originally from Bengaluru, and the defendant has money and political power and is capable of executing the threatened acts. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, her men, servants, agents, etc., from dispossessing the plaintiff from the schedule premises without due process of law. The cause of 6 OS.No.1582/2024 action for the suit arose on 18-08-2022 and subsequently within the jurisdiction of this Court. With these contentions, the plaintiff has prayed to grant the above-mentioned reliefs.
6. The defendant has appeared before the Court in response to the summons through an advocate and has filed the written statement. In the written statement, it is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The suit is frivolous, and the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. The suit is filed with a malafide intention and ulterior motive so as to gain unlawful consideration. This whole intention and conduct on the part of the plaintiff clearly amounts to abuse of the process of law. The plaintiff has no locus standi or any semblance of right or claim over the property or business, as the plaintiff has nothing to do with the property or the business of the defendant. In order to derive rights over the property and business of the defendant, the plaintiff has come up with the present suit.
7. The defendant was appointed as the authorized representative of Nandini Parlour vide order dated 28-12-2017 7 OS.No.1582/2024 at Koramangala BDA Complex, Bengaluru, by Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited. The same was followed by an allotment letter dated 21-03-2018 by the BDA. Accordingly, an extent of 10×10 square feet of space in the BDA Complex, Koramangala, was allotted for establishment of a milk booth at a rent of ₹374 per month, inclusive of 18% GST. As per the conditions of the allotment letter, the defendant deposited a sum of ₹3,170 to the Bangalore Development Authority within 30 days from the date of allotment. Added to it, the condition imposed was that, in the event the defendant is not able to run the licence, the allotment would be canceled and the security deposit would be forfeited without further intimation, and there would be enhancement every two years by 10% on the existing rent. The defendant deposited the security deposit on 22-03-2018 in the name of the Commissioner, BDA, Bengaluru.
8. The defendant has also deposited a sum of ₹50,000 as she was appointed as authorized representative of KMF on 20-03-2019, and the receipt was issued by KMF on 08-05-2019. With regard to the appointment as authorized 8 OS.No.1582/2024 retailer of Nandini products, the same was issued by Bangalore Cooperative Milk Union on 03-08-2019. The defendant has also purchased bottle cooler boxes and another bottle cooler vide invoices dated 27-04-2018 and 08- 04-2022. Pursuant to the same, the defendant has been carrying on the business of Nandini products. The defendant has also deposited a sum of ₹30,000 towards security deposit for supply of milk on 19-04-2018. KMF supplies all dairy products including butter, paneer, khoa, etc., as well as sweets and ice cream. Accordingly, the defendant has been carrying on the business with the help of employees, who were paid on a monthly basis. Absolutely, there was no impediment with regard to smooth running of the business till February 2024. In fact, the plaintiff, who was an employee of the defendant, had to look after the business on a monthly salary basis.
9. The defendant is a lone person in the family. The defendant's husband is working as a driver, the first son is working as a gym trainer, and the second son is currently studying. In the factual situation, no one in the family was 9 OS.No.1582/2024 available to assist the defendant in the business, and as such, the plaintiff was employed to assist the defendant. The defendant is an authorized representative of KMF, which is in the nature of a license. The license is granted to a person and is not transferable. The defendant, being the licensee, alone shall carry on the business as authorized representative of KMF. Consequently, renting out or parting with the Nandini Parlour in terms of the order dated 28-12-2017 and the allotment letter dated 21-03-2018 issued by the BDA is not permissible. It is only the authorized representative who shall carry on the business. Therefore, parting with possession or renting out the premises is contrary to the conditions of the said order and allotment letter. In such circumstances, the specific case of the defendant that she has rented out the business and parted with possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff does not arise at all, and the same is not permissible in terms of the order and grant. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to any right or claim as contended in the suit over the business or the property, and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
10 OS.No.1582/2024
10. The sole reason for appointing the plaintiff as an employee was due to the severe illness of the defendant's father-in-law and mother-in-law. The defendant's father-in-law suffered from cancer, and it was the defendant who took care of his treatment for several months in the hospital. The defendant alone was looking after him, as her husband and children were not in a position to do so. In spite of the defendant's efforts and medical treatment, her father-in-law succumbed to cancer. During the relevant period, the defendant was not able to concentrate on the business, though she managed it whenever she was free.
Subsequently, the defendant's mother-in-law was also diagnosed with cancer. The defendant had to devote all her time for the treatment of her mother-in-law. The father-in-law's illness was diagnosed in the latter part of the year 2020, and the mother-in-law's disease was detected in the early part of 2022. It was only the defendant who had to take care of her mother-in-law, as it was her responsibility to ensure treatment. Accordingly, the defendant was required to take her mother- in-law for treatment regularly. Hence, the defendant 11 OS.No.1582/2024 approached the plaintiff in April 2023 to look after and manage the business on her behalf.
11. The plaintiff was only an employee under the defendant, and there was no other relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. It was agreed that the plaintiff would look after the business as an employee and not on a rental basis. Initially, the relationship was cordial, and the plaintiff gained the trust of the defendant. In the meantime, the health condition of the defendant's mother-in-law deteriorated in June 2023, and the defendant was not in a position to visit the business premises. Taking advantage of the situation, the plaintiff started making false and frivolous claims to grab the business and the schedule property. The defendant was unaware of this immediately, and the same was exploited by the plaintiff to file the present suit. The mother-in-law of the defendant succumbed to cancer on 19-07-2023, which was within the knowledge of the plaintiff. The health records and death certificate are produced. Due to the death, the defendant suffered immense pain and was not in a position to come out of the grief. During this period, the defendant used 12 OS.No.1582/2024 to contact the plaintiff over mobile phone and enquire about the business, and the plaintiff assured her that everything was being taken care of.
12. The defendant visited the business premises in the last week of May 2023 and enquired about the accounts. Though the plaintiff agreed, he evaded furnishing the accounts. The defendant insisted on furnishing the accounts and informed that she would look after the business and requested the plaintiff to continue as an employee. Thereafter, the plaintiff falsely claimed that he was running the business on a monthly rental basis, which is not true. The records produced by the plaintiff are only from June 2023 onwards, and there are no documents to establish lawful possession on a rental basis. The plaintiff has failed to furnish accounts and has manipulated and fabricated documents. Payments to BAMUL for purchase of milk were made only after June 2023, and the account extracts are from 17-06-2023 to 16-11-2023.
13. The statement of accounts commences from 01- 01-2022 to 01-02-2023, and the UPI payments are also subsequent to June 2023. The documents produced clearly 13 OS.No.1582/2024 indicate manipulation. There are absolutely no documents to prove that the plaintiff was in occupation of the premises on a rental basis. Hence, the documents are fabricated to grab the property and business of the defendant and are not sustainable. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. The property and business are wholly vested with the defendant. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. In the remaining part of the written statement, the defendant has denied all other allegations and contended that there is no cause of action for the suit, and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.
14. Based on the pleadings, the predecessor of this Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves interference by the defendant to his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?
4. What order or decree?14 OS.No.1582/2024
15. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exhibits P-1 to P-54. The defendant examined herself and marked Exhibits D-12 to D-27.
16. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records.
17. Having heard the arguments of both sides and after perusal of the records, my answers to the above issues are as under for the following reasons.
Issue No.1: In the Negative Issue No.2: In the Negative Issue No.3: In the Negative Issue No.4 : As per Final Order below, for the following:
REASONS
18. Issue Nos. 1 to 3: These points are taken together for common discussion since all these points are interlinked and require common discussion. 15 OS.No.1582/2024
The plaintiff is before the Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from dispossessing him from the suit premises without due process of law, forcible eviction, and such other reliefs. In the suit, the plaintiff has contended that he is the tenant of the suit schedule premises under the defendant for a monthly rent of ₹25,000, and that he has also paid ₹2,00,000 as security deposit. It is further contended that the defendant is a retailer of Nandini milk and its products, and that the suit schedule premises was allotted to the defendant by the BDA to run the Nandini milk parlour. The plaintiff contends that he is the tenant of the premises and is running the Nandini milk parlour by paying ₹25,000 as monthly rent. However, the defendant is now trying to evict him from the suit premises without due process of law, even though he is paying rent regularly, and hence the suit is filed.
19. Contra, the defendant has contended that the plaintiff is not a tenant and that he has been employed by her to manage the business as she was facing family difficulties. She has further contended that her husband is working as a 16 OS.No.1582/2024 driver and her first son is a gym coach and her second son is studying. It is further contended that her mother-in-law and father-in-law were suffering from ill health during the said period, and because of that she was unable to run the business smoothly. Therefore, the plaintiff was employed to assist her in the business. However, he is now claiming tenancy over the premises. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the suit.
20. The plaintiff, who has been examined as PW1, has filed his chief examination affidavit by reiterating the plaint allegations and has produced Exhibits P1 to P54. He was subjected to cross-examination, wherein he admitted that he knows the defendant, her children, and that her husband was working as a driver in KMF, and that their children are studying. He has admitted that the suit premises was allotted to the defendant to run the milk parlour business on 21-03- 2018, and admitted that the defendant is the retailer of Nandini milk and its products.
21. He further stated that he is the tenant of the premises on a monthly rent of ₹25,000 and that he paid 17 OS.No.1582/2024 ₹1,00,000 as security deposit by cash, but he has no document in this regard. He further stated that he paid another ₹1,00,000 through UPI payments towards the security deposit. The same is denied by the learned counsel for the defendant. He has stated that he has paid rent through UPI to the defendant and has produced documents in that regard. He has further admitted that he has not furnished documents to show payment of rent from February 2023 till date. He admitted that the details in Exhibit P52 pertain to business transactions. He has clearly admitted that Exhibits P1 to P33 invoices stand in the name of Sumalatha - defendant . He denied the suggestion of the learned counsel for the defendant that he is not the tenant of the premises and also denied the suggestion that he is a worker under the defendant in the suit premises. He admitted that he has no rent agreement to show that he is the tenant under the defendant.
22. The defendant, who has been examined as DW1, has filed her chief examination affidavit reiterating the defence and has produced Exhibits D1 to D27. There is no dispute 18 OS.No.1582/2024 with regard to the fact that the defendant is the retailer of Nandini milk and milk products. The defendant has produced Exhibits D1 to D5 to substantiate that she is the retailer of Nandini milk products. She has also produced Exhibit D26, the death certificate of her father-in-law, and Exhibit D27, the death certificate of her mother-in-law. She was subjected to cross-examination, wherein she deposed that she has not transferred any amount to the plaintiff from her account and that she used to pay cash to the plaintiff. She further stated that every month she used to pay ₹15,000 as salary to the plaintiff by way of cash, but she has no receipts in this regard and has not maintained any attendance register. She admitted that only one person was working under her. She further admitted that she has to pay rent to the BDA. She denied the suggestion that she has not stated that the plaintiff is an employee under her in the written statement. She stated that prior to filing of the case she had paid ₹15,000 as salary to the plaintiff. She admitted that she used to receive money from the plaintiff's account and stated that she had not noticed that while sending the amount, the plaintiff had mentioned it 19 OS.No.1582/2024 as rent. It is admitted that the license to run the milk parlour is in her name. She denied the plaintiff's contention that he had improved the business and that she is trying to evict him for that reason. She also denied the suggestion that she, along with her supporters, had threatened the plaintiff to vacate the premises on or before 29-02-2024. She denied the suggestion that the plaintiff was never an employee under her and that she was not paying any salary of ₹15,000.
23. From the appreciation of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, it is clear that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit premises. It is also not in dispute that the defendant is the authorized retailer of Nandini milk and milk products and that the premises was allotted to her by the BDA on monthly rent. Now the issue before the Court is whether the defendant has tried to evict the plaintiff from the suit premises forcibly or not. The contention of the plaintiff is that he is the tenant of the premises under the defendant, but the plaintiff has not produced any document to substantiate his contention that he is the tenant of the premises. Exhibits P12 to P33 cash receipts issued by BAMUL stand in the 20 OS.No.1582/2024 name of the defendant. Further, Exhibits P34 to P38 and P42, which are HP gas receipts, are in the name of Nandini Milk Parlour. Exhibits P39 to P41 electricity bills also stand in the name of the defendant. Exhibits P43 and P44, which are the account statements of the plaintiff, disclose transactions, and though in some entries it is mentioned that rent has been paid, in the absence of supporting documents, these documents are not sufficient to hold that the plaintiff is the tenant of the premises. Exhibits P46 to P49 are photographs, Exhibit P50 is a CD, Exhibit P51 is the certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, Exhibit P52 are screenshots disclosing payments through UPI by the plaintiff to the defendant, and Exhibit P53 is a CD.
24. The contention of the defendant that the plaintiff is an employee under her appears to be probable, as the plaintiff has admitted that her husband was working as a driver and her children are studying. It is the definite contention of the defendant that she alone was running the business and that during the relevant period her father-in-law and mother-in-law suffered severe ill health. She has 21 OS.No.1582/2024 produced the death certificate of her father-in-law at Exhibit D26, which reveals that her father-in-law died on 28-06-2021, and her mother-in-law died on 19-07-2023.
25. In the absence of any rental agreement, the possession of the suit premises by the plaintiff appears to be with the permission of the defendant, either as an employee or to take care of the business. However, the same is not in issue. The only question is whether the defendant is trying to evict the plaintiff from the suit premises forcibly. In this regard, the suggestion put by the learned counsel for the plaintiff to DW1 during cross-examination is admitted by DW1 that she has filed a suit against the plaintiff seeking eviction. Such being the case, when the defendant has filed a suit for eviction through due process of law, the question of evicting the plaintiff without due process of law does not arise. In the absence of a rental agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the contention of the plaintiff that he is a tenant cannot be accepted. Therefore, the points for consideration are answered in the negative.
22 OS.No.1582/2024
26. Issue No.4: in view of the above discussions I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
No orders as to cost.
Office to draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer III on Computer and print out taken thereof is revised, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 12th day of January,2026). Digitally signed
LP by L P SATHISH
SATHISH Date: 2026.01.12
15:12:30 +0530
[SATHISHA.L.P.]
XCI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.
JUDGE FOR KPIDFE CASES .
C/C VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff:
P.W.1 - Mr. Vignesh K.G Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff :
Ex.P.1 to 33 Cash Receipts and Bills
Ex.P.34 to 38 Receipts of HP Gas
Ex.P.39 and 40 Electricity Bills
Ex.P.41 Electricity Receipt
Ex.P.42 HP Gas connection receipt
Ex.P.43 Bank Statement from 01.02.2023 to
31.01.2024
23 OS.No.1582/2024
Ex.P.44 Bank Statement from 01.08.2022 to
31.01.2024
Ex.P.45 Certificate U/s 63 of BSA - 2023 with
regard to Ex.P.43.
Ex.P.46 to 49 Photographs - 4 in Nos.
Ex.P.50 CD said to be containing Ex.P.46 to
Ex.P.49 - Photographs
Ex.P.51 Certificate U/s 63 of BSA - 2023 with
regard to Ex.P.46 to Ex.P.50.
Ex.P.52 Screen Shots of Watsapp - 16 pages
Ex.P.53 CD said to be containing Ex.P.52
Ex.P.54 Certificate U/s 63 of BSA - 2023 with
regard to Ex.P.52 and Ex.P.53
Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant DW.1- Smt. Sumalatha Witness examined and Documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
Ex.D.1 Original Allotment Order dated
28.12.2017
Ex.D.2 Letter dated 11.07.2018 issued by
Director, KMF
Ex.D.3 Certificate issued by the KMF
Ex.D.4 Acknowledgment dated 17.04.2018
Ex.D.5 Office order dated 19.04.2018
Ex.D.6 to 9 4 Bank Receipts
Ex.D.10 and 11 Gate Pass
Ex.D.12 Invoice
Ex.D.13 to 17 Balance Clearance Certificate
Ex.D.18 Invoice dated 24.07.2018
24 OS.No.1582/2024
Ex.D.19 to 22 Delivery Challan
Ex.D.23 and 24 Tax Invoice
Ex.D.25 Original Receipt dated 26.03.2024
Ex.D.26 Death Certificate of Erappa
Ex.D.27 Death Certificate of Manjula
(Sathisha.L.P.).
C/C. VII A.C.C. & S.J.,
BENGALURU.
25 OS.No.1582/2024
(Judgment pronounced in the
open court vide separate judg-
ment for the following;)
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is
dismissed.
No orders as to cost.
Office to draw decree
accordingly.
C/C. VII A.C.C. & S.J.,
BENGALURU.
26 OS.No.1582/2024