Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M.G.S. Kamal, J
Devaraddi, S/o. Chandrappa Nandeppanavar – Appellant
Versus
Shivanand S/o. Basappa Tarikoppa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.G.S. KAMAL, J.
Plaintiffs are before this Court in this appeal being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 26.02.2020 passed in OS No.273/2015 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag (for short ‘Trial Court’), dismissing their suit seeking relief of mandatory and permanent injunction, which has been confirmed by the judgement and order dated 17.08.2021 passed in RA No.65/2020 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Gadag (for short ‘First Appellate Court’).
2. Suit schedule properties consist of house property bearing G.P.No.30A/2, 30B, open site VPC No.27, house property bearing VPC No.30A/1, and compound wall on the southern boundary of property bearing VPC No.27 all are situated at Binkadakatti village, Taluk and District Gadag belong to the plaintiffs. A hand sketch is produced along with the plaint. The disputed area is shown between letters ‘AB’ upto ‘V’ compound wall and ‘VC’ portion of an area in the plaint sketch.
2.1. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of house properties bearing Nos.30A/2 and 30B which are shown by letters ‘AGHI’ in the hand sketch produced along with the plaint. Plaintiff No.3 is the owner and in possession
In property disputes, a suit for injunction must assert substantial rights rather than mere possession claims for it to be maintainable.
A mandatory injunction requires specific issues to be framed regarding disputed existence before being granted.
Point of law : Suit for mandatory injunction was filed for removal of huts on the land against the defendants, who were described as the encroachers without requesting relief of possession, and decla....
Private road land - originally the suit land part of the land and that very same land standing recorded in the name of Defendant No. 1 is noted as Private Road. This Plaintiff was not a party to the ....
The plaintiff was entitled to protection unless the construction of the compound wall violated local act regulations.
Possession backed by municipal sanction and compliance establishes ownership rights, qualifying for protection against interference.
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
