Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, VENKATESH NAIK T
Gullu G. Talreja @ Prakash G. Talreja, S/o Sri Gelaram Talreja – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Abbas Khan, S/O Late Sidhique Ali Khan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VENKATESH NAIK T., J.
This appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala (herein after referred to as 'the trial Court', for brevity) in O.S.No.337/2017.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants are plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and respondent is the defendant.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and for recovery of possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Smt. Vijayalakshmi and Sri.S.R.Yogananda purchased suit schedule item No.1 of 'A' schedule property, land bearing Survey No.20 situated at Nagarur Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, measuring 8 acres 11 guntas from Channagiriyappa under a registered sale deed dated 31.01.1969 and suit schedule item No.2 of 'A' schedule bearing survey No.28 situated at Nagarur Village, measuring 8 acres 11 guntas from Sri.S.R.Yogananda under a registered sale deed dated 13.12.1978. The boundaries as per the sale deed dated 13.12.1978 shows on
Ownership must be proven through title documentation; mere possession does not grant rights against true ownership. Legal title supersedes claims of adverse possession without sufficient proof.
To claim adverse possession, one must establish continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, acknowledging the title of the true owner.
Point of law: The principle of lis pendens is still settled principle of law. In this connection, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Peary, AIR 1978 All 318] has considered the scope o....
Point of law: Person raising plea of adverse possession must necessarily first admit the ownership of true owner of relevant property to the knowledge of that owner. In the instant case, the defendan....
(1) Adverse Possession—Mere possession cannot be deemed to be adverse possession merely on the basis of denial of another’s title over property for that would be violative of basic rights of actual o....
A suit for recovery of possession is maintainable without a declaration of title when the plaintiff's ownership is undisputed and the defendant's encroachment is clearly established.
Ownership claims require clear evidence, and adverse possession is incompatible with claims of title, as established in this case.
The judgment establishes that continuous possession and proper documentation can affirm ownership, while claims of adverse possession require clear evidence and specific pleading.
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
