Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI V. HOSMANI,J
Krishnamurthy, S/o Shamanna – Appellant
Versus
Amshamma, W/o Munivenkatappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.
Challenging judgment and decree dated 14.07.2009, passed by Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in R.A.no.254/2005, this appeal is filed.
2. Brief facts as stated are, appellant was plaintiff in OS no.147/1998 filed seeking permanent injunction restraining defendants, their agents etc. from interfering with property bearing site no.234 (VP Khata no.369) measuring East-West - 40 ft. and North-South - 30 ft. situated at Kumbalahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk ("suit property" for short).
3. In plaint, it was stated plaintiff was absolute owner of suit property, based on grant and issue of hakkupatra. Since then plaintiff was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property and paying property tax regularly. It was stated that plaintiff had stored building material for construction of house. But, on 25.05.1998, without any manner of right, title or interest over suit property, defendants attempted to interfere with possession. And when plaintiff resisted, they threatened to come again and dispossess plaintiff. Though, plaintiff filed complaint with jurisdictional police, he was directed to approach Civil Court,
In suits for injunction, possession must be proved with corroborative evidence, and appellate courts may not evaluate title unless essential for judgment.
A plaintiff must independently establish ownership to succeed in a property claim; mere possession is insufficient without clear evidence of title.
Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to the transaction covered by Ex.A1 with reference to the claim of the 2nd appellant in O.S.No.431 of 1969 and also held the question of adver....
Possession follows title; entries in revenue records do not confer ownership. A suit for injunction is maintainable without seeking declaration of title when possession is established.
The validity of property grants cannot be dismissed solely based on the date of issuance, emphasizing the presumption of truth in revenue records until proven otherwise.
Point of Law : Provisions of clause (b) of Rule 27 of Order 41CPC. Said rule applies when Court feels that production of any document or examination of any witness is necessary to enable it to pronou....
The First Appellate Court must comply with procedural requirements and evaluate evidence from both parties; failure to do so renders its findings perverse.
Documentary evidence prevails over oral claims in property disputes; adverse possession must be substantiated by valid evidence.
Title and adverse possession claims mutually inconsistent; adverse possession requires proof of specific hostile, open, continuous possession known to owner. No interference with concurrent factual f....
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
