Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
Govindappa, S/o. Nagappa – Appellant
Versus
Kanthamma, W/o. Ramachandrappa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. existence of road established by the plaintiff and confirmed by the panchayat. (Para 3 , 6 , 12 , 14) |
| 2. defendant's claims regarding property boundaries and rights contested. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 3. permanent injunction justified due to plaintiff's established access. (Para 10 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri A.C. Chethan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Muralidhar P., for the respondent.
2. The defendant is the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree of injunction passed in O.S. No.569/2011, confirmed in R.A.No.115/2019.
3. Facts in a nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
A suit for bare injunction came to be filed by the plaintiff, contending that she is the absolute owner of the suit properties which are mentioned in 'A' Schedule and 'B' Schedule, separately, are culled out hereunder for ready reference:
'A' SCHEDULE
Property bearing H.L.No.143, measuring East-West 60 feet, North-South 40 feet, situated at Kothanur village, Kuppahalli Grama Panchayath, nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk and bounded on the:
East by :Road
West by :Road
North by :Plaintiff's property
South by :K. Bachappa's vacant Site and house
'B' SCHEDULE
Th
Permanent injunction upheld due to established rightful access by the plaintiff, despite the defendant's claims of obstructing the public road.
The court determined that the plaintiff's apprehension of encroachment was unfounded given existing road status and affirmed previous dismissals based on proper judicial analyses.
Panchayat cannot assert ownership without evidence, court upheld property rights of plaintiff.
A plaintiff entitled to an injunction must prove ownership and apprehension of trespass, especially when co-ownership is claimed over a disputed access route.
A valid easement of necessity was established, overriding lower court rulings that misinterpreted evidence concerning property 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....
In permanent injunction suits, issues of title must be explicitly framed and addressed to ensure procedural fairness, enabling parties to substantiate their claims.
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
