Bangalore District Court
Gopikrishna Alias Govardhan vs Balaram Singh Alias B K Singh on 22 September, 2025
SCCH-11 1 S.C.No.674/2025
KABC020259672025
IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. SMALL CAUSE JUDGE,
BENGALURU. (SCCH-11)
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER - 2025
PRESENT: SRI.NARENDRA.B.R., B.Sc., L.L.B.
I ADDL. SMALL CAUSE JUDGE
SC No.674/2025
PLAINTIFF:
Sri.Gopikrishna @ Govardhan,
S/o.Late V.Ramaswamy
Aged about 66 years
Residing at Ground Floor of No.3
1st Cross, Park Road
Chick Lalbhag, Gandhinagar
Bengaluru - 560053.
(By Sri.Shrikanth Badaradinni, Adv.,)
- VS -
DEFENDANT:
Mr.Balaram Singh @ B K Singh
S/o.Shiwanath
Aged about 70 years
Residing at First Floor No.3
1st Cross, Park Road,
SCCH-11 2 S.C.No.674/2025
Chick Lalbagh, Gandhinagar,
Bengaluru - 560053.
(Defn - Exparte)
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to quit, vacate and handover the vacant possession of suit schedule premises and also to pay damages of ₹.16,000/- per month.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property which is more fully described in suit schedule and he acquired the suit premises by virtue of registered Will dated 11.06.1992 executed by Smt B Jayamma D/o Late Bhashyam Iyengar, Smt B Jayamma was the original owner of suit premises who let out first and second floors of schedule premises to the defendant. The said Jayamma got executed the Will on 11.06.1992 bequeathing the schedule premises in SCCH-11 3 S.C.No.674/2025 favour of Plaintiff which has been got registered in the office of Sub-registrar. After the demise of Jayamma, the Will executed by her became operative and the plaintiff became the owner of suit premises.
The plaintiff got changed the khata of the suit premises based on the Will executed by said Jayamma. Suit premises have been let on rent by Jayamma and after the Will became operative, the defendant continued to be tenant under the plaintiff.
The defendant used to pay rent of ₹.720 per month earlier and gradually same has been increased from time to time and the rent was increased to a sum of ₹.8,000 per month from January 2024. The plaintiff was bedridden from several years and taking advantage of said fact, the defendant became defaulter in payment of rent. The defendant is due to pay a sum of ₹.3,08,920/- towards the rent upto December 2024. From January 2025, the defendant not SCCH-11 4 S.C.No.674/2025 paid any amount to the plaintiff towards the rent and the plaintiff is dependent on the rents received from the suit premises. Further the plaintiff instructed the defendant that as and when the premise is required, the defendant has to vacate the premises and he has to pay the rent regularly. In spite of instructions, the defendant became defaulter in payment of rent and also not vacated the premises when demanded by defendant plaintiff. The suit premises is required for personal use of plaintiff as his daughter got married and the property is required for his residence. The plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises by stating the above said reasons, but the defendant failed to vacate the premises and also not paid up to date rent. In spite of demand made by plaintiff, the defendant not vacated the suit premises and instead, assaulted the plaintiff SCCH-11 5 S.C.No.674/2025 pertaining to which the plaintiff got lodged complaint before the jurisdictional Police. Further, the defendant attempted to restrain the plaintiff from visiting the suit premises, annoyed the plaintiff and the plaintiff could not take appropriate legal action against the defendant since he was suffering from health issues. The defendant is in unauthorized occupation of suit premises and is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff for his unauthorized occupation. The plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit premises and also to pay arrears of rent of ₹.3,08,920/- which is due till December 2024 and also a sum of ₹.8,000/- per month from January 2025 till the date of filing of the suit. The notice sent to the defendant served on 23.05.2025 and in spite of service of notice, the defendant neither complied the terms of notice nor SCCH-11 6 S.C.No.674/2025 replied the notice. As such, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit seeking for eviction of defendant from suit premises. On the above stated grounds, plaintiff sought to decree the suit.
3. After registration of case, suit summons is issued to defendant through court as well as RPAD and in spite of service of notice, defendant remained absent and hence, defendant placed ex- parte.
4. In order to prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined as PW.1 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to 5 documents and closed his side of evidence.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the materials available on records.
6. By considering the pleadings and the SCCH-11 7 S.C.No.674/2025 materials on record, below mentioned points arise for consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for possession of suit premises?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that tenancy of defendant is duly terminated?
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant is due to pay damages of ₹.16,000/- per month?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent with interest @ 12% per annum as sought by him?
5. What order or decree?
7. This court answers the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative;
Point No.2 : In the Negative;
Point No.3 : In the Negative;
Point No.4 : In the Negative;
Point No.5 : As per final order for the
following:
SCCH-11 8 S.C.No.674/2025
R E A S O N S
8. Point No.1:- It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is the owner of schedule premises which he stated to have acquired by virtue of registered Will dated 07.06.1992 executed by one Smt.B.Jayamma. In order to prove the said aspect, the plaintiff furnished notarized copy of registered Will which is marked as Exhibit P1. On perusal of Exhibit P1, it discloses the aspect of execution of Will bequeathing suit premises by one Jayamma in favour of plaintiff. In the said document, it is stated that the suit premises, along with other properties, belong to the ownership of Jayamma and she is bequeathing the properties in favour of plaintiff by virtue of said Will. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff is claiming right, title and interest over the property by virtue of Will stated to have been executed by Jayamma in his favour. SCCH-11 9 S.C.No.674/2025 Though the will is a registered one, the plaintiff has to establish due execution of Will in accordance with Section 67 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
9. As per Indian Succession Act, Will is a compulsorily attestable document and the said document has to be attested by attesting witnesses. Section 67 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam provides for mode of proof of execution of a document required by law to be attested. The said provision states the manner in which the document, which requires attestation, has to be proved. The Will furnished by the plaintiff is a document which in law needs attestation and the Will is to be proved as per Sec.67 of Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. The will furnished by the plaintiff is a document which is required by law to be attested. As the Will is a compulsorily attestable document, the same has to be proved in accordance with Section 67 of Bharatiya SCCH-11 10 S.C.No.674/2025 Sakshya Adhiniyam. Section 67 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam provides that the document, which is required by law to be attested, is to be proved by examination of at least one attesting witness to the document. In the present case, the plaintiff relies on the Will stated to have been executed by Jayamma in his favour, in order to prove his title and ownership over the suit premises. In order to prove the aspect of execution of the Will, the plaintiff has to examine one of the attesting witnesses to the Will as required by Sec.67 of Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. But, the plaintiff has not examined any attesting witnesses to the Will before the court. The source of acquisition of right and title over the property is from the Will stated to have been executed by Jayamma and the plaintiff, being the beneficiary and propounder of the Will, has to prove due execution of the Will in accordance with law. It SCCH-11 11 S.C.No.674/2025 is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove due execution of Will in his favour, as per the provisions of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, in order to prove his right and ownership over the suit premise. As per Section 67 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the propounder of the document, which in law requires attestation, has to examine one of the attesting witnesses in order to prove the due execution of the document. As the Will is a compulsorily attestable document, the same has to be established by examination of one of the attesting witnesses. But the plaintiff neither examined nor made any attempt to examine the attesting witnesses to the registered will. Though the will is a registered document, the registration of document will not absolve the propounder/beneficiary from examining the witnesses and the same has to be proved in accordance with Section 67 of Bharatiya Sakshya Athiniyam since it SCCH-11 12 S.C.No.674/2025 is a compulsorily attestable document. Registration of the Will cannot be considered to be proof of due execution of the Will and it has to be proved in accordance with law. The plaintiff not provided any explanation regarding non-existence or non- availability of witnesses who have attested the will. The plaintiff propounded the will stated to have been executed by Jayamma and the burden is on him to prove due execution of said Will in accordance with law. As per Section 67 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the plaintiff has to examine one of the attesting witnesses to the Will in order to prove its due execution. But the plaintiff has not examined any attesting witnesses to the Will and also not made any attempt to get the witnesses examined on his behalf. The materials on record does not disclose about non-existence or non-availability of attesting witnesses to the Will. The source of SCCH-11 13 S.C.No.674/2025 acquisition of right and title over suit premises is based on the Will stated to have been executed by Jayamma and under such circumstances, the plaintiff has to establish due execution of the Will in his favour in accordance with law. The materials on record disclose the aspect of ownership of Jayamma over suit premises. The materials on record also disclose that the said Jayamma was having right and interest over the suit premises and has got the right to dispose the same. But, the plaintiff failed to establish due execution of Will in his favour, as required by law, by examination of one of the attesting witnesses. The registration of Will does not absolve the propounder of the Will from complying with the conditions requisite for proof of execution of Will. Mere registration of Will cannot be considered to be sufficient proof of its due execution. The Will has to be proved in accordance SCCH-11 14 S.C.No.674/2025 with law by examining one of the attested witnesses. Mere registration of Will does not prove its due execution and the propounder of the Will is not absolved from proving the Will in accordance with law. As stated above, the plaintiff not at all examined the witnesses to the Will and also not made any application seeking to summon the witnesses in order to prove the execution of the Will. The plaintiff claims right over the suit premises by virtue of Will stated to have been executed by Jayamma. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff has to establish due execution of Will in his favour by Jayamma through which suit property stated to have been bequeathed. Unless and until the execution of the will is proved by plaintiff, his title and ownership over the suit property cannot be considered to have been duly proved. The plaintiff has to establish due execution of Will in order to SCCH-11 15 S.C.No.674/2025 show acquisition of right, title and interest over the suit premises. The plaintiff not stated anything about the existence or non-availability of witnesses who have attested the Will. In the absence of materials and compliance of conditions requisite for proving the execution of the Will, the execution of Will cannot be considered to be duly proved. In the absence of proof of execution of Will, the plaintiff cannot be considered to have acquired right and title over the suit premises. The plaintiff failed to prove the aspect of acquisition of right and title over suit premises by virtue of Will. As the plaintiff failed to establish his right and title over the property in accordance with law, he cannot be considered to be entitled to the possession of suit premises. The primary burden is on the plaintiff to establish the ownership over the suit property with cogent and corroborative materials. SCCH-11 16 S.C.No.674/2025 The question of determining landlord and tenant relationship arises only after proof of title and ownership over the property. As the plaintiff failed to establish acquisition of right over the property, in accordance with law, the adjudication of relationship of landlord and tenant does not sustain for consideration. The aspect of determination of tenancy does not sustain for consideration since the plaintiff failed to prove acquisition of property by him through the Will. As the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of Will, he cannot be considered to have established his right and title over the suit premises. As the plaintiff failed to establish his ownership and title over the suit property by proving the execution of Will, he is not entitled to the relief sought by him. As such, this court answers Point No.1 in the Negative.
10. Point No.2 to 4:- The plaintiff filed SCCH-11 17 S.C.No.674/2025 present suit against the defendant seeking eviction of defendant from the suit premises. The primary burden is on the plaintiff to prove the aspect of his title and ownership over the suit premises. As discussed above, the plaintiff failed to establish his title and ownership over the suit premises in accordance with law. The plaintiff claimed right over the suit premises by virtue of registered will stated to have been executed by Smt.Jayamma. But, the plaintiff failed to establish due execution of will in his favour by examining the attesting witnesses. The will is not proved in accordance with law as provided in Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and the plaintiff cannot be considered to have proved due execution of will. The plaintiff contended that the property has been acquired by virtue of will, but due execution of will has not been proved by plaintiff in accordance with law. The plaintiff can SCCH-11 18 S.C.No.674/2025 be considered to have right, title and ownership over the suit premises only if he establishes due execution of will. As the plaintiff failed to establish the execution of will in accordance with law, he cannot be considered to have acquired right, title and ownership over the suit premises by virtue of will. As the plaintiff failed to prove due execution of will, the question of acquisition of right, title and ownership over suit premises does not sustain for consideration in the absence of proof of execution of will. As the plaintiff failed to prove his ownership over suit premises in accordance with law, the question of determining the relationship of landlord and tenant as well as determining the aspect of tenancy does not sustain for consideration. The plaintiff has to establish his ownership over the suit property prior to considering the aspect of tenancy and termination of SCCH-11 19 S.C.No.674/2025 tenancy. As the plaintiff failed to prove the aspect of acquisition of ownership by virtue of will, the aspect of tenancy does not sustain for consideration. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought by him as he failed to prove the aspect of due execution of will in his favour in accordance with law. Hence, this court answers Point No.2 to 4 in the Negative.
11. Point No.5:- For the above reasons, this court deems it appropriate to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order on cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY All the part and parcel of the First & Second floors of premises No.3, 1st Cross, Park Road, Chick SCCH-11 20 S.C.No.674/2025 Lalbhag, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru - 560053, measuring East to West 17 feet and North to South 16.5 feet in all measuring 280.5 Sq. Ft, consisting upon Ground, First and second and bounded on:
East by : Municipal Galli, West by : Property bearing No.3/2, North by : Property bearing No.3/1, South by : Municipal Galli.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly typed by her script corrected and revised by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of September - 2025) (NARENDRA.B.R.) I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE BENGALURU A N N E X U R E LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 - Sri.Gopikrishna @ Govardhan LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:
- NIL -
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF Ex.P1 Will dated: 11.06.1992 SCCH-11 21 S.C.No.674/2025 Ex.P2 Form - A Ex.P3 Copy of Legal Notice Ex.P4 Postal Receipt Ex.P5 Returned postal cover Ex.P5(a) Notice LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:
- NIL -
(NARENDRA.B.R.)
I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
BENGALURU