Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI
Nohsina Arnib, D/o Late Syed Altaf Hussain – Appellant
Versus
Mali Suresh, S/M Shankarappa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of property dispute. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. defendants' written statements and their positions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. trial court's evidence examination. (Para 13 , 15) |
| 4. first appellate court's dismissal of appeal. (Para 16 , 18 , 21) |
| 5. defendant no.3's claims and arguments evaluated. (Para 20 , 22 , 28 , 30 , 33) |
| 6. outcome of the appeal. (Para 34) |
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2012 passed in R.A.No.6/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-3, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and also the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.27/2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala.
2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. Appellant was defendant No.3, respondent No.1 was plaintiff and other respondents were the other defendants.
3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the
In property disputes, a registered title supersedes unperformed agreements, protecting the rights of bona fide purchasers against prior contracts.
An unregistered possessory agreement does not confer rights to the property and cannot be enforced for possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
(1) Part Performance – To claim benefit under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 there shall be necessary pleadings – In absence of necessary pleadings, benefit under the provision cannot....
A rectification deed cannot create title where the original vendor lacked authority to convey property rights, reaffirming legal principles regarding property transfers.
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.
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.
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.
The court ruled that the burden of proof lies on the defendant to establish claims of fraud regarding registered property transactions, which were not substantiated.
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.
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
