Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Sachin Shankar Magadum
V. Gopikrishna, S/O Late Sri. M.V. Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Gem Superstructures Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and rights to property and common access. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. trial court proceedings and issues framed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's consideration of evidence presented. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. trial court's findings on the limited access rights to the schedule b property. (Para 11) |
| 5. court's findings on property rights and limitations. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. final dismissal of the appeal due to lack of merit. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.
This appeal is by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 25103/2011, passed by the LXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.25103/2011.
2. For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial court.
3. The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the property bearing BBMP Corporation No.8. They claim to have acquired the Schedule A property under a registered sale deed dated 31.07.2004, executed by one Narain Dass Bodaram and others, represented by defendant No.1, Sri R. Shekar. The plaintiffs specifically assert that defendant No.1 had negotiated the sale transaction, having derived interest in a la
Property access rights must be established through documentation; claims without evidence are insufficient. The court upheld the trial court's ruling that the road remains private.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the 'B' schedule property was a common area for both plaintiffs and defendants, and no exclusive right over the common area could be claimed b....
The vendor cannot retain any portion of the appurtenant pathway separately and alienate it to third parties.
(1) Decree of permanent injunction cannot be granted by going against stipulations in agreement to sell.(2) Interpretation of Documents – Where language employed in instrument is clear and unambiguou....
The judgment establishes that a disputed passage is deemed a common passage, rejecting claims of exclusive ownership when the claimant fails to provide adequate evidence of possession.
The plaintiff's failure to prove exclusive right over the suit lane and the court's reliance on documentary evidence to establish common ownership.
A plaintiff can seek a temporary injunction to protect an easementary right even if a formal declaration of that right has not been made, provided they can demonstrate a prima facie case and the abse....
A valid easement of necessity was established, overriding lower court rulings that misinterpreted evidence concerning property access rights.
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
