Back
HRISHIKESH ROY, SANJAY KAROL
Shivanna – Appellant
Versus
B. S. Puttamadaiah (Dead) Through Lrs. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard, Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
The respondents are represented by Mr. Ashwin V. Kotemath, learned counsel.
2. The present appeal arises out of the O.S. No.344 of 1986 where the original plaintiff was Mr. B.S. Puttamadaiah and the original defendant No.1 was one, Eraiah. The appellants before us are the legal heirs of the defendant -Eraiah and the respondents are the legal heirs of the plaintiff -Puttamadaiah in the O.S. No.344 of 1986.
3. In the suit the prayers of the plaintiff were to the following effect:
(b) permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants or anybody on his behalf from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property;
(c) Recovery of court costs and for grant of such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case.”
4. The subject matter of the suit was certain land in Bavakal Village in Mandya District. Shivanna was the owner of the said land. The land owner enter
The High Court reinstated the plaintiff's title and possession, emphasizing that the Appellate Court overstepped by declaring title for the defendant without a formal claim.
The First Appellate Court's judgment is set aside due to failure to comply with procedural requirements, necessitating remand for a proper examination of the case under Section 43 of the Transfer of ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff's claim of ownership based on a valid and unchallenged Deed of Sale prevails over a defendant's claim of adverse possession and....
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
Concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts support defendant's lawful possession and ownership; plaintiff's claims found insufficient to challenge documented sales.
The courts affirmed ancestral ownership over fraudulent claims and established that adverse possession requires unequivocal evidence, which was lacking from the defendants' assertions.
Ownership of immovable property cannot be established through an unregistered sale deed, which is inadmissible in evidence under the Indian Registration Act, affirming that possession follows title.
A plaintiff must prove lawful possession to claim an injunction, and reliance on revenue records alone is insufficient to establish ownership of property.
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
