Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
C.M. JOSHI
M. Murthy, S/o K Manickam – Appellant
Versus
M Pankajakshi, W/o N Desan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C.M. JOSHI, J.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.5455/1996 passed by learned IX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore and judgment and decree dated 13.08.2009 passed in O.S.No.7557/1994 by learned XXII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suits for injunction, the defendant No.1 therein are in appeals.
2. The subject matter of the dispute being a 20 feet wide cross road situated in between the property of the plaintiff and that of defendant No.1 in both the suits, these appeals are clubbed and are taken up together though they were tried separately before the trial Court.
3. The parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
4. Brief facts of the case in OS No.5455/1996 are as below:
The plaintiff-M.Pankajakshi, is the owner in possession of the residential premises in site No.20/3 of III Cross, Vivekananda Nagar, Bengaluru. Earlier, the said site was numbered as Site No.9 and later, it was numbered as site No.28. The layout was formed in Sy.No.82/2 of Lingarajpuram. The plaintiff purchased the site under Sale Deed dated 22.06.1981 and later, she got a building plan sanc
Personal rights to access can be enforced against public property encroachments despite jurisdictional claims. Prior admissions in related cases form essential evidence in determining access rights.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of an easementary right based on continuous usage and the partition deed, allowing for the grant of perpetual injunction even in....
Law relating to appointment of Court Commissioner is fairly well settled and that the Court Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of collection of evidence.
The High Court affirmed that findings of fact by lower courts cannot be interfered with unless they are manifestly erroneous or based on inadmissible evidence under Section 100 of CPC.
The court confirmed that claims of property encroachment require substantial proof; failure to demonstrate ownership or obstruction by defendants led to dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal.
Section 265 of Act reads as vesting of public streets and their appurtenances in corporation.
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
