Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI V. HOSMANI
Chikkappa, S/o.Lakkappa – Appellant
Versus
Narasamma, W/o S.G. Muniyappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.
Challenging judgment and decree dated 14.08.2006 passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Shivamogga, in RA no.112/2005, this appeal is filed.
2. Appellants are legal representatives of original plaintiff in OS no.647/1993 filed for permanent injunction restraining defendant, her agents, etc. from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of property bearing Sy.no.58 (VS no.3) measuring 1 Acre 15 guntas of Kashipura Village, Shivamogga Taluk ('suit property' for short).
3. In plaint, it was stated in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 22.01.1992 executed by Chandrappa S/o Muniswami agreeing to sell suit property for total sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- and receiving Rs.80,000/- as advance sale consideration, plaintiff was put in possession and was cultivation of same. And, without any manner of right, title or interest over suit property, defendant tried to take possession forcibly with help of adjacent owners for forming layout sell away sites to innocent strangers for wrongful gain. And that on 24.06.1993, defendant came to suit property with rowdy elements, attempted to dig drain and form road. With great difficulty,
An agreement to sell does not confer ownership rights; lawful possession is required for injunction, and plaintiffs must seek title declaration against third parties.
Suit filed simpliciter for injunction where claim is founded purely to claim protection under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act is not maintainable. Such a suitor is not entitled to claim reli....
A suit for injunction can be maintained based on possession derived from a registered agreement for sale, despite the absence of a formal sale deed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience in deciding on temporary injunction. The judgment also highlig....
The plaintiff, having lost the case on title dispute, was not entitled to permanent injunction against the true owner.
The court held that a sale deed remains valid despite non-payment of consideration, affirming ownership rests with the purchaser as per registered transaction under the Transfer of Property Act.
(1) Injunction is a consequential relief – In a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction, it is not a suit for declaration simpliciter, it is a suit for declaration with a furth....
Presumption that possession goes with title applies to a case like this where neither party has been able to prove or establish possession, but one of the parties is able to show its title.
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
