Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
B.C. Muniramaiah, S/o. Late Sri. Chikkanna – Appellant
Versus
Indira, W/o. Late Sri. S.S. Hegde Major – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri.Skanda Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Raghunath M. D., learned counsel for appellant and Sri.A.Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel for respondents.
2. The present second appeal is filed questioning the validity of the judgments passed in O.S.No.1919/2008 and RA No.67/2018 whereby the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that he has perfected the title over suit ‘B’ schedule property and order of permanent injunction came to be dismissed.
3. Suit ‘B’ schedule property reads as under:
5 Acres of land in re-Sy No.11 Kyalsanahalli, K R Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk bounded on:
East by: Portion of land in Sy. No.11
West by: Road
North by: Muniramaiah’s land
South by: Property of MR Hegde in block No.7
-
4. Plaintiff laid a claim in the suit by contending that he is the owner of suit ‘A’ schedule property by way of grant from the Government. It is his case that based on the title in respect of suit ‘A’ schedule property, he started enjoying suit ‘B’ schedule property for a period of 26 years continuously without any hindrance. Therefore, defendants are to be restrained from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by decl
The courts determined that undocumented claims to adverse possession were insufficient against documented evidence of eviction and title, emphasizing the necessity of continuous possession for claim ....
(1) Tenant cannot claim adverse possession against his landlord/lessor.(2) Second Appeal – Under Section 100 of CPC High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by First Appellate Cou....
The appellants' possession of the suit property is the settled possession and it has to be protected until they are evicted by due process of law. The respondent had lost the right to claim declarati....
A claim of adverse possession must be clearly established and cannot contradict other claims of title; failure to do so results in dismissal of the suit.
The main legal point established is that to succeed in a suit for possession brought on title, the Plaintiff must establish permissive possession of the Defendant, failing which the suit may be dismi....
Title claims and adverse possession are contradictory; plaintiffs must establish the timeline of possession with clear and consistent evidence to prevail in claims of adverse possession.
To claim adverse possession, one must establish continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, acknowledging the title of the true owner.
The judgment emphasizes the legal principles of adverse possession, including the requirements of open, clear, continuous, and hostile possession, burden of proof, and the need for a substantial ques....
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
