Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH
V. Chandrashekaraiah S/o Late Veeranna – Appellant
Versus
Shivarudraiah S/o Late Veeranna – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P. SANDESH, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property in terms of document Ex.P1 and consequently, the mutation - Ex.P2 came into existence as well as Ex.P17 and also RTC stands in the name of the plaintiff in terms of Exs.P3 to P8 and Exs.P13 to P16 and sought for the relief of permanent injunction. Defendant No.4 appeared and filed written statement before the Trial Court disputing the document of Ex.P1 and also the revenue document and apart from that also, he has filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara and the same also dismissed vide order dated 01.07.1999. The plaintiff relies upon the documents which have been placed on record i.e., Ex.P1 to P17 and the Trial Court also having considered the material on record, the 4th defendant being the family member of plaintiff and other defendants has gone to the extent of denying that the plaintiff is his mother and has also gone to the extent of filing an affidavit to the effect that his father Late. Veeranna had an illegit
A permanent injunction suit does not entertain title issues; rather, it focuses on the established possession of the claimant, evaluated through documentary evidence.
The court upheld the permanency of the plaintiffs' possession of the property, validating their ownership over defendants' claims despite the absence of substantial evidence on defendants' part.
The First Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's findings by disregarding substantial documentary evidence supporting the plaintiff's lawful possession of the land.
The plaintiff's claim for possession, sought 29 years after the date of the registered sale deed, is barred by limitation and cannot be permitted.
A party claiming property possession must substantiate their claims with credible evidence; failing to do so results in dismissal of claims.
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.
In property disputes, a plaintiff must provide clear evidence of lawful possession and ownership, especially when the title is contested; failure to do so may result in dismissal of claims for injunc....
In property disputes involving claims of possession and title, a plaintiff must provide clear evidence of lawful ownership and seek a declaration of title when the title is contested.
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
