Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI V.HOSMANI
K.A. Jagannath S/o Annegowda – Appellant
Versus
K.E. Padmegowda S/o Late Eregowda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.
1. Challenging judgment and decree dated 25.07.2023 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in R.A.no.41/2022 and judgment and decree dated 07.09.2022 by Principal Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in O.S.no.444/2015, this second appeal is filed.
2. Sri Gururaj R., learned counsel for appellants submits that appeal is by defendants (except defendant no.6) in O.S.no.444/2015 filed by respondent no.1 (plaintiff) seeking for permanent injunction restraining defendants from trespassing into property bearing Sy.no.80, Block no.2, measuring 30 guntas, situated at Koduvalli village, Vasthare Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'Suit Property') of which plaintiff was owner.
3. In plaint, it was stated that Suit Property had fallen to share of plaintiff in partition dated 01.07.2015 and by virtue of same, plaintiff had become absolute owner and was in possession and enjoyment of Suit Property. Defendants being villagers without having any right objected plaintiff fencing Suit Property by claiming that said land was required for burial ground. It was stated that Suit Property was never used as burial ground nor reserved for same a
The courts affirmed the right to a permanent injunction, ruling that the plaintiff demonstrated both ownership and possession, while the defendants failed to prove their claim of land being used as a....
Documentary evidence prevails over oral claims in property disputes; adverse possession must be substantiated by valid evidence.
A claimant must establish exclusive settled possession and document rights to land for relief against interference; admissions impacting access rights must be substantiated.
The law establishes that possession of property is sufficient for injunction relief, even in absence of title documents if ownership is admitted.
Possession of property is protected under law, and eviction can only occur through due legal process; previous court findings confirmed the plaintiff's rightful possession and the inadequacy of the d....
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.
The plaintiff must prove ownership outside any acquired land, and shifting the burden to the defendant is legally erroneous.
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
