Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Hemalatha Y.M., W/o Dr. R. Madhavamurthy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri. P.D. Surana, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Hareesh Kumar N.T., learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Defendant is the appellant in the second appeal challenging the validity of the decree of permanent injunction passed in O.S.No.284/of 2010 in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'):
SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of Site No.3, having Khanushmari No.509/3, situated at Arishinakunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring East to West 50 feet and North to South 30 feet and bounded on the -
East by : Site No.2 West by : 25 Feet Road North by : Road South by : Site No.4.
All that piece and parcel of Site No.4, having Khanushmari No.509/4, situated at Arishinakunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring East to West 50 feet and North to South 30 feet and bounded on the East by :Site Nos.2 & 6 West by :25 Feet Road North by : Site No.3 North by South by : Site No.5.
3. The judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court was questioned by the appellant before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.44/2018.
4. Learned judge in the
The plaintiff must prove ownership outside any acquired land, and shifting the burden to the defendant is legally erroneous.
Judgments in appeal can only be overturned when proved unjust; proper possession and legal title must be substantiated through evidence.
A suit for perpetual injunction is not maintainable when encroachment is established, particularly if the land has been acquired by the state, barring the plaintiff's cause of action.
A plaintiff can seek permanent and mandatory injunctions based on established possession of the property, regardless of whether a declaration of title has been formally sought.
Possession of property relies on clear evidence and prior grants must establish rightful owner; failure to prove boundaries and title leads to dismissal of claims.
Possession established through admissions is sufficient for granting permanent injunction against unlawful interference.
The court reaffirmed that a permanent injunction regarding immovable property can be granted based on established possession and ownership, despite contesting claims, underscoring the significance of....
The appeal was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to prove ownership or illegal encroachment, affirming the necessity for clear evidence in property disputes.
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
