High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Possession Suit, Remands Case for Fresh Consideration on Tenant's Claim of Ownership and Adverse Possession. The court set aside the trial court's decree for possession and damages, finding that the defendant's plea of adverse possession and the validity of the gift deed were not properly adjudicated.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 23:50:16

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant-defendant, Sri T.A. Kaleemulla, filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2019 passed by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 2621/2017. The respondent-plaintiff, Sri Mohammed Ilyas Basha, had instituted the suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule immovable property and for damages at Rs. 50,000 per month, claiming to be the owner and landlord under a registered gift deed. The defendant contested the suit, asserting ownership by adverse possession for over 12 years and disputing the validity of the gift deed. The trial court partly decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, ordering possession and damages. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the trial court had not properly considered the defendant's plea of adverse possession and the validity of the gift deed. The court noted that the issues raised required fresh adjudication. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree, and remanded the matter to the trial court for de novo disposal, directing the trial court to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in the appeal. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on a specified date.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Regular First Appeal - Section 96 CPC - Remand - The appeal challenged the trial court's decree for possession and damages - The appellate court found that the trial court failed to consider the defendant's plea of adverse possession and the validity of the gift deed - Held that the matter requires fresh consideration and remanded the case to the trial court for de novo disposal (Paras 1-10).

B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Tenant's Claim - The defendant claimed ownership by adverse possession for over 12 years - The trial court did not properly adjudicate this issue - Held that the defendant's claim of adverse possession must be examined on merits (Paras 3-8).

C) Evidence - Gift Deed - Registered Document - The plaintiff claimed ownership through a registered gift deed - The defendant disputed its validity - The trial court did not adequately consider the evidence regarding the gift deed - Held that the validity of the gift deed needs to be determined (Paras 3-6).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit for possession and damages without properly considering the defendant's claim of ownership by adverse possession and the validity of the gift deed.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.10.2019, and remanded the matter to the trial court for de novo disposal. The trial court was directed to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in the appeal. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 12.02.2024.

Law Points

Adverse possession
Ownership dispute
Tenant's claim
Remand
Civil Procedure Code
Section 96 CPC
Gift deed
Registered document
Burden of proof
Limitation

Case Details

NC: 2024:KHC:1275

RFA No. 44 of 2020 (POS)

2024-01-09

S.R. Krishna Kumar

NC: 2024:KHC:1275

Sri. Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate for Sri. Mahamood Patel, Advocate (for appellant); Sri. Imran Pasha, Advocate (for respondent)

Sri. T A Kaleemulla

Sri. Mohammed Ilyas Basha

Nature of Litigation

Regular First Appeal against judgment and decree in a suit for recovery of possession and damages.

Remedy Sought

Appellant-defendant sought setting aside of the trial court's decree for possession and damages.

Filing Reason

The appellant-defendant challenged the trial court's decree partly decreeing the suit for possession and damages, claiming that the trial court failed to consider his plea of adverse possession and the validity of the gift deed.

Previous Decisions

The trial court (III Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) partly decreed the suit in O.S. No. 2621/2017 on 18.10.2019, ordering possession and damages in favor of the plaintiff.

Issues

Whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit for possession and damages without properly considering the defendant's claim of ownership by adverse possession? Whether the trial court failed to properly adjudicate the validity of the gift deed under which the plaintiff claimed ownership?

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant-defendant argued that he had acquired ownership by adverse possession for over 12 years and that the gift deed in favor of the plaintiff was invalid. The respondent-plaintiff contended that he was the owner under a registered gift deed and that the defendant was a tenant liable to be evicted.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court failed to properly consider the defendant's plea of adverse possession and the validity of the gift deed, which are crucial issues requiring fresh adjudication. Hence, the matter is remanded for de novo disposal.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.2621/2017 on the file of the III Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.10.2019, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent – plaintiff against the appellant – defendant for recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule immovable property and for damages at Rs.50,000/- per month was partly decreed by the trial court in favour of the respondent – plaintiff against the appellant – defendant. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:- The plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for damages and other reliefs interalia contending that he was the owner and landlord of the suit schedule property having acquired the same under a registered gift deed executed in his favour.

Procedural History

The respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 2621/2017 before the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, seeking possession and damages. The trial court partly decreed the suit on 18.10.2019. The appellant-defendant filed RFA No. 44 of 2020 before the High Court of Karnataka, which was heard and disposed of on 09.01.2024, allowing the appeal and remanding the case.