Back
P. S. DINESH KUMAR, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
V. Lalitha – Appellant
Versus
K. H. Puttaswamy Gowda, S/O Hanume Gowda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant is plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S. No.16870/2006 on the file of XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in the said suit dated 18.08.2018, he has preferred this appeal.
2. The brief relevant facts leading to this appeal are as under:
3. Plaintiff's father Shri. M.Venkatesh, was the owner of a land bearing Sy. No.29/1 of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. According to the plaintiff, she succeeded and inherited the said land after demise of her father. It is averred that the Bengaluru Development Authority, Bengaluru, sought to acquire the said property. The BDA has reconveyed the said land vide Resolution No.484 dated 28.09.1984 as per endorsement dated 02.02.1985. According to the plaintiff, after formation of the layout in the said land, the BDA reconveyed site No.3C-301/1 to 3C-301/17, 3C-201 and 3C-203 i.e. 19 sites in favour of her father.
4. The suit schedule property involved in this case is site No.3C-301/8. It was reconveyed to the plaintiff under sale deed dated 16.08.2005 executed by BDA. Accordingly, plaintiff was put in possession o
The appellate court is mandated to provide reasoned findings and reassess evidence independently, as per the Code of Civil Procedure.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing parties with the opportunity to adduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The judgment also emphasized the legal pro....
The court affirmed that newly presented evidence can establish property title, overriding previous rejections; thus, a relinquishment deed can validate claims even if originally dismissed due to tech....
THE APPELLATE COURT SHOULD NOT REMAND A CASE MERELY BECAUSE IT CONSIDERED THAT THE REASONING OF THE LOWER COURT IN SOME RESPECTS WAS WRONG.
The judgment establishes that the burden of proof for ownership lies with the claimant, and permissive possession does not confer ownership rights without supporting evidence.
The court upheld that possession is key in injunction cases, reaffirming the presumption in favor of older title documents when evidence of possession is compelling.
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
