Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH
H. Hanumegowda, S/o. Hanumbegowda – Appellant
Versus
H.R. Ranganatha, S/o. H.V. Ramaiah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(H.P. SANDESH, J.)
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff while seeking the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, specifically pleaded before the Trial Court that originally suit property was belongs to Srinivasa S/o late Ramaiah and Smt.Venkatalakshmamma W/o late Ramaiah as the plaintiff obtained the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 22.08.1994. Thereafter, necessary documents were transferred in the name of the plaintiff. Since, then, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He has also got converted the property into the site. The defendant being the neighbourer of the property of the plaintiff, has encroached an area measuring East to West -12 feet, North to South – 9 fee and constructed the house. Though the plaintiff has conducted panchayath in this regard, the defendant did not heeded the words of the panchayathdars and he is trying to put up construction over the encroached area of the plaintiffs. Hence, filed the suit. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendan
A plaintiff can seek permanent and mandatory injunctions based on established possession of the property, regardless of whether a declaration of title has been formally sought.
The plaintiff must prove ownership outside any acquired land, and shifting the burden to the defendant is legally erroneous.
Concurrent findings of fact on possession and lack of necessity for mandatory injunction rendered the substantial questions of law irrelevant.
Possession established through admissions is sufficient for granting permanent injunction against unlawful interference.
Equitable relief of mandatory injunction is discretionary and cannot disturb long-standing possession; a purchaser cannot claim such relief for structures existing prior to their ownership.
Possession claims are invalid when original ownership rights are ceded through valid gift settlements, particularly when encroachment and unauthorized constructions contravene municipal regulations.
The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 of the C.P.C. is confined to substantial questions of law, prohibiting re-evaluation of evidence or findings of fact.
Ownership and possession claims necessitate substantiation of evidence regarding alleged encroachment and property boundaries.
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
