Back
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
Karnataka State Road Corporation, By Its Divisional Controller, Urban Division, Mysore – Appellant
Versus
Mallaiah, S/o. Late Mayaga, Since Desecd By LR's – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Krishna S. Dixit, J.)
This appeal by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'KSRTC') & the State Government, seeks to call in question the judgment & decree dated 29.08.2011 entered by the learned II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Mysuru, whereby the respondent-plaintiffs' declaration suit in O.S.No.476/2010 has been decreed. The operative portion of the said judgment & decree reads as under:
It is declared that the plaintiffs are the owner of the suit schedule properties.
It is further ordered that the defendants are restrained not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property in item No.1, 2 & 4.
It is further ordered that the revenue authorities are hereby directed to enter the name of the plaintiffs as owner of the suit schedule properties.
It is further ordered that the 4th defendant is hereby directed to hand over the possession of item No.3 of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs.”
2. FACTS IN BRIEF:
(a) The private respondents herein had filed the subject suit for declaration of title, for possession and for injunction in respect of suit lands fully described
The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities over forest land notified under Section-4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the vesting of ....
The court upheld the State's authority to declare land as reserved forest, emphasizing that tenure-holders cannot claim proprietary rights over such land post-abolition of Zamindari.
The right to sue accrues when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe the right of the plaintiff. The Trial Court erred in holding the suit barred by limitation. The provisions of Section....
Fraudulent entries in revenue records do not confer legal rights; land designated as forest is public utility land and cannot be claimed without proper legal basis.
The need for a fair consideration of evidence and the requirement for the Government to disclose crucial evidence in land dispute cases.
The court reaffirmed that the notification under the Indian Forest Act validly vested land with the State, and the appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside unchallenged notifica....
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
