Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH J
Somayya Belchada, S/O Korage Belchada – Appellant
Versus
Santhosh, S/O Late Gulabi Belachadthi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P. Sandesh, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court passed in O.S.No.100/2002 dated 17.11.2015 and R.A.No.3/2016 dated 07.08.2020 granting the relief of declaration declaring that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties.
3. The factual matrix of case of plaintiffs/respondents before the Trial Court that Aithu Belchada is the father of the plaintiffs had claimed occupancy right in respect of the properties covered by Sy.No.13/32 measuring 67 cents and Sy.No.13/48 measuring 30 acres of Udyavara village, Udupi Taluk along with other properties by filing an application under section 48A(1) of the K.L.R Act and that his claim has been enquired into by the land tribunal, Udupi in LRY NO:74/361/915/917/TRI/1754/79-80 occupancy right has been granted in his name by the Land Tribunal, Udupi vide its order dated 28-09-1981 In pursuance of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, occupancy certificate in Form No.10 has also been issued in the name of aforesaid Aithu Belchada by the Spl
A suit for mere declaration of ownership without seeking relief of possession is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
A suit for declaration may be maintained even if the plaintiff is not in possession, provided a consequential relief is sought, as mutation does not establish ownership.
A suit for declaration of ownership without possession is maintainable under special statutes prohibiting land transfer to protect rights of original grantees, particularly for Scheduled Caste/Schedu....
A suit for declaration of title must seek possession to be valid; relief beyond pleadings is impermissible.
The failure to seek the relief of recovery of possession rendered the suit not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for declaration may be maintainable even if not coupled with the prayer for partition, but the plaintiff must seek further relief than ....
A party not involved in previous proceedings cannot be bound by collusive decrees and may seek declarations of title despite not claiming recovery of possession.
(1) Adverse Possession – Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blend of fact and law – Efficacy of adverse possession law in most jurisdictions depends on strong limitation s....
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
