Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
J.M.KHAZI
Thimmaiah, S/o. Giriyappa, Since Deceased By His Lrs- Giriyappa, (S/o. Late Thimmaiah) – Appellant
Versus
Hanumaiah, S/o. Gaviyanna, Since Deceased By His Lrs.- Smt. Kamalamma, (W/o. Late Gaviyanna) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
J.M. KHAZI, J.
This second appeal is by the defendant challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the first Appellate Court dismissing the appeal filed by him and thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.
3. Plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration of his title to the suit schedule property and recovery of possession from the defendant along with past and future mesne profit.
4. Suit schedule property is 1 gunta of land with a tile roofed shed in Survey No.24/9 totally measuring 2 acres.
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased 4 guntas of land in suit survey No.24/9, totally measuring 2 acres. Since then, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. He constructed tile roofed shed in an extent measuring 1 gunta during 1982-83 as a farmhouse for better cultivation of his agricultural land adjoining it. However, defendant unlawfully occupied the suit schedule property. The defendant approached the Land Tribunal in GLRM 67/83-84 seeking confirmation of his ownership over the suit schedule property, which came to be dismissed on 15.05.1987. Defe
Ownership claims must be substantiated by credible evidence; the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A does not apply without sufficient proof of lawful possession.
(1) Mere sale agreement does not create any right or interest in property.(2) Right and remedy for enforcement are mutually exclusive jurisprudential concepts.(3) A person who invokes protection of S....
A permanent lease does not confer ownership rights, and the distinction between leasehold rights and ownership must be carefully evaluated in legal disputes concerning property.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff's claim of ownership based on a valid and unchallenged Deed of Sale prevails over a defendant's claim of adverse possession and....
Ownership of immovable property cannot be established through an unregistered sale deed, which is inadmissible in evidence under the Indian Registration Act, affirming that possession follows title.
The court affirmed that newly presented evidence can establish property title, overriding previous rejections; thus, a relinquishment deed can validate claims even if originally dismissed due to tech....
Possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act can be protected against third parties, even without a formal sale deed, if established through credible evidence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of valid documentation and unchallenged possession in establishing ownership rights, as well as the requirement for legal challen....
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.
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
