Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
G Prathiba, D/o Smt Sulochana – Appellant
Versus
Chethan M Shastry, D/o Sri Mruthunjaya Shastry – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.
This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2019 in O.S. No.2378/2013 on the file of XXXIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.
2. In terms of the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff's suit for bare injunction is decreed. The Trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has established his possession over the property.
3. The defendants aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree are before this Court.
4. The suit property is described as under:-
"All that piece and parcel of the residential property bearing No.42, present Khata No.35/2/42 formed in the land bearing Survey No.35/2, situated at Gidadakonenahalli Village, Yeswanthpura Hobli, Bangalore north taluk,
| Measuring | |
|---|---|
| East to West | 40 feet |
| North to South | 30 feet |
| Total Area | 1,200 square feet |
| Bounded | |
| East by | Road |
| West | Site No.52 |
| North | Site No.41 |
| South | Site No.43 |
5. The suit property was originally part of survey No.35/2 and it was converted for non-agricultural residential use vide conversion order dated 24.03.2003. Plaintiff claims to have purchased the property from defendant No.1. who is said to be daughter of late Ramappa Kumar.
6. The plaintiff claims that Ramappa Kuma
A suit for bare injunction is maintainable where the plaintiff establishes possession, even without a declaration of title, especially when title disputes are present.
A suit for injunction cannot be maintained without proving lawful possession and title, especially when there are competing claims and clouds over the title.
A suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without a declaration of title, particularly when there is a cloud over the plaintiff's title as indicated by a disclaimer from the vendor.
Ownership claims must rely on substantive evidence, as documentary title prevails over mere revenue entries in property disputes.
A suit for an injunction cannot proceed if the title to the property is under dispute, necessitating resolution through a comprehensive suit rather than a mere injunction based on possession.
In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff must establish prima facie title or possession; failure to do so results in dismissal of the suit.
Possession follows title; a person cannot seek injunction against the true owner even if in possession.
The plaintiff, having lost the case on title dispute, was not entitled to permanent injunction against the true owner.
Judgments in appeal can only be overturned when proved unjust; proper possession and legal title must be substantiated through evidence.
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
