IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Ashok S.Kinagi
K.N. Raju, S/o Nanjegowda – Appellant
Versus
B.S. CHIKKANNASHETTY – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.
This Regular second appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2012, passed in R.A.No.46/2008 by the learned Additional District Judge, Hassan, and the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2008 passed in O.S.No.116/1996 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hassan.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were defendant Nos.7 and 8, respondent Nos.1 to 10 were the plaintiffs, and other respondents were the other defendants.
3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration of title and permanent injunction and also to declare the registered sale deed dated 02.08.1995, allegedly executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 8 in respect of suit schedule property, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
3.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the father of the plaintiffs was the owner of land bearing Sy.No.18, and defendants No.1 to 5 were the owners of land bearing Sy.No.19 in Chikkabyadagere village, Kasaba Hobli, Belur Taluk. The
A claim of adverse possession cannot be sustained if the party claiming it does not acknowledge the original owner's title, as opposed claims are inconsistent and void.
An unregistered sale deed does not convey ownership of property, and adverse possession cannot be claimed without a valid title established through registration.
In property disputes, a registered title supersedes unperformed agreements, protecting the rights of bona fide purchasers against prior contracts.
Title and possession based on registered sale deeds prevails unless credible evidence refutes ownership; mere claims of adverse possession without substantiating proof are insufficient.
A registered sale deed remains valid unless a concurrent claim for declaration of title is made; mere cancellation without asserting ownership is insufficient.
Ownership of immovable property cannot be established through an unregistered sale deed, which is inadmissible in evidence under the Indian Registration Act, affirming that possession follows title.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff's claim of ownership based on a valid and unchallenged Deed of Sale prevails over a defendant's claim of adverse possession and....
Plaintiffs failed to establish ownership and prove fraud related to a sale deed, resulting in the lawsuit being barred by limitation.
The title of a vendor must be established to support a claim of ownership over property, where mere possession is inadequate under property law.
A registered sale deed substantiated the plaintiff's claim over properties, and the First Appellate Court erred by disregarding critical evidence regarding possession.
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.