H. P. SANDESH
Dayananda Poojary S/O. Late Koosa Poojary – Appellant
Versus
Surendra T. Mendon S/O. Late Taniya Gurikara – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P.Sandesh, J.
1. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court granting the relief of possession of suit ‘A’ schedule property bearing Sy.No.124/2A of 10 cents in Puttur village, Udupi taluk as described in the schedule.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for respondents.
3. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.
4. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs while seeking the relief of possession that defendant No.2 is the brother of the plaintiffs and he did not choose to join along with the plaintiffs hence, he has been arrayed as defendant No.2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of 10 cents of land bearing Sy.No.124/2A of Puttur village of Udupi taluk bounded as per plaint ‘A’ schedule. The suit schedule property has been inherited by the plaintiffs along with defendant No.2 and they are the owners. In the suit ‘A’ schedule property which is a non- agricultural land, having tiled building bearing D.No.4/2010 and 4-10A t
The court established that once an application under Form No. 7 is rejected, a subsequent application under Form No. 7A cannot be filed, affirming the civil court's jurisdiction over property dispute....
Land Reforms Act, 1961 is undoubtedly a beneficial legislation. It is important to remember that this piece of legislation is meant to preserve, protect and also confer benefits on persons who are ab....
The court established that claims of occupancy rights under fraudulently presented evidence are invalid, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining authenticity in legal claims regardless of familial r....
Point of Law : Land Tribunal is bound by the statutory presumption as to entries made in record of rights and order of the Tribunal without any reference to such entries and having no discussion as ....
The evidentiary value of the Civil Court's judgment, the presumptive value of revenue records, and the limited scope of interference in a revision petition under Sec. 121-A of the Act were the centra....
The court emphasized that beneficial legislation like the Karnataka Land Reforms Act must be interpreted liberally in favor of tenants, ensuring proper procedures are followed in land grant applicati....
(1) Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is a beneficent legislation for granting occupancy rights to cultivating tenants of agricultural lands.(2) Order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's failure to establish tenancy under the Land Reforms Act led to the dismissal of the writ petition seeking occupancy rights....
Importent Point: A certificate issued under Section 72-K of the Act is conclusive. Once the same is found to be conclusive, same can not be refused to be taken into consideration for any purpose wha....
The Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction in granting occupancy rights without notifying interested parties, violating principles of natural justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.