Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
Amaramma, W/o Eshwarappa Ganikeri – Appellant
Versus
Mallappa, S/o Bheemappa Hanchinal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff praying to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 29.08.2018 passed in R.A.No.42/2018 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Raichur (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) and consequently, to restore the Judgment and decree dated 11.06.2018 passed in O.S.No.277/2014 (Old No.114/2014) by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Sindhanur (for short ‘the trial Court’).
2. The appellant has filed the suit in O.S.No.277/2014 against the respondent Nos.1 to 6 for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.161/*/9, measuring 2 acres 22 guntas of irrigated land of K.Hosahalli village, taluka Sindhanur.
3. The brief facts of the case of the appellant/plaintiff contended in the plaint are as under:
That this suit is filed in respect of Sy.No.161/*/9 measuring 2 acres 22 guntas of K.Hosahalli village. The plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Eshwarappa S/o Basanna Ganiger. The husband of the plaintiff died about 20 years back leaving behind the plaintiff and his daughter Hanumamma W/o Erappa Gorluti. The daughter of the plaintiff died intestate
The court affirmed that the deceased's legal heirs retain ownership rights to family property, provided there is adequate evidence of succession and possession.
The ownership of property is established through valid documentation and recognition in property records despite claims of prior ownership.
The principle of feeding the grant by estoppel allows a subsequent acquisition of title to validate an earlier transfer made by a person who lacked title at the time of the transfer, thereby protecti....
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming ownership; failure to provide satisfactory evidence leads to the dismissal of claims challenging established titles.
Ownership claims require clear evidence of title; mere possession or incorrect records do not suffice.
Possession is critical for granting permanent injunctions even in the presence of title disputes, as affirmed by the Courts' findings regarding the plaintiff's established possession.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
A party with an interest in the property is a necessary party in a partition suit to ensure just adjudication and prevent collusive decrees.
The court affirmed that discrepancies in survey numbers must be rectified for valid title claims, and boundaries do not prevail over survey numbers in property identification.
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
