Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
C.M.Poonacha, S.R.Krishna Kumar
Rasulsab S/O. Alisab Karjagi Since Deceased By His Lr’s – Appellant
Versus
Mohammadali S/O. Babusaheb Maniyar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’], by the appellant/defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.70/2015 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’], whereby, the said suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking for a direction to the appellant/defendant to handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property described by the letters “BCEFGAB” in the hand sketch annexed to schedule ‘A’ and schedule ‘B’ to the plaint was decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant by the Trial Court.
2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff initially instituted the aforesaid suit seeking recovery of possession, mesne profits and other reliefs in relation to suit schedule property, which was originally delineated by the letters “ABCD” in the hand sketch annexed to schedule ‘A’ to the plaint. Subsequently, the plai
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.
To establish the sameness of interest, it is not necessary to establish sameness of the cause of action. Sameness of interest is a pre-requisite for application of under Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C.
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.
Ownership and possession claims necessitate substantiation of evidence regarding alleged encroachment and property boundaries.
The court reaffirmed that established ownership through undoubted sale deeds and municipal approvals is paramount, shifting the burden of proof to the defendants when such ownership is claimed.
The plaintiff must prove ownership and encroachment claims effectively; mere possession does not suffice without credible evidence.
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
