Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. SRISHANANDA
R. Gurudeva, S/o. Late Rudrappa G. – Appellant
Versus
R. Niranjan S/o. Late Rudrappa – Respondent
ORDER :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
First defendant in O.S.No.112/2013 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru, is the revision petitioner challenging the judgment dated 10.06.2016 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition are as under:
Plaintiff and first defendant being the brothers, along with their mother succeeded to the property of late Rudrappa which includes coffee estate called ‘Doopadacool D Estate’ (‘Estate’ for short) situated at Nagenahalli village, measuring 167 acres as per the records. Said property includes several structures including a bungalow morefully described in the schedule to the plaint which is culled out hereunder and hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’.
“All the piece and parcel of the bungalow comprising Varanda Hall, Bed rooms, kitchen, bathroom, toilet, withal amenities like TV, Refrigerator, sofa, chairs, cots etc., forming part of Doopad Cool ‘D’ Estate comprising in Sy.No.35/p situated at Nagenahalli village, Jagara Hobli, Bindiga Grama Panchayath, Chikkamagaluru Taluk and District, morefully shown in the annexed photographs, measurements
A plaintiff can recover possession of immovable property if they prove prior possession and unlawful dispossession, even without establishing ownership under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
Possession can be reclaimed swiftly under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, allowing immediate remedies against illegal dispossession, disregarding title disputes.
Watchman or caretaker's occupation of outhouse does not constitute settled possession of entire property under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; plaintiffs' prior possession proved by repair works entit....
The court ruled that while unlawful dispossession was established, the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit on technicalities violated the substantive rights under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
Court confirmed that possession, established without due process, warrants restoration under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, irrespective of ownership documents, which do not confer automatic r....
In Section 6 Specific Relief Act suit, plaintiff must prove settled possession on exact dispossession date against specific defence of third-party prior occupation; trial court's perverse ignorance o....
Plaintiff must prove prior possession within six months of dispossession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act; mere claims without credible evidence of personal knowledge are insufficient.
The validity of a registered gift deed remains intact until challenged; possession claims must be supported by substantial evidence rather than mere assertions.
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
