Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Mallavva – Appellant
Versus
Kalsammanavara Kalamma (Since Dead) By Legal Heirs – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench dated 13.06.02019 in Regular Second Appeal No. 100071 of 2019 by which the Second Appeal filed by the appellants herein (original defendants) came to be dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondents herein(original plaintiffs) and decreeing the suit for declaration of title and possession.
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as under:
b. The original plaintiff Late Kalsammanavara Kalamma instituted Original Suit No. 67 of 2011 in the Court of the Civil Judge and JFMC, Hadagali, seeking relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property. In the said suit, th
The suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, allowing 12 years from the date of adverse possession, not Article 58.
In property disputes, once a plaintiff proves title, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish adverse possession; failure to do so results in the plaintiff's claim being upheld.
Possession must be open, continuous, and adverse to establish adverse possession; failure to prove this invalidates claims of ownership.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of adverse possession and its application to determine property rights and limitation.
The possession of the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest should be considered as the possession of the plaintiffs for the purpose of Article 142 of the Limitation Act, and the sale of immovable prop....
Article 58 of Limitation Act prescribes limitation of three years from date when right, to sue first accrues to obtain a declaration.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article