Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH
Leelavathi Acharya, W/o. Purushothama Acharya – Appellant
Versus
P. Prafulla, D/o. Late Yuvaraj, Since Dead By Lrs.- B.N. Nagaraja Shetty, (H/o. P. Prafulla) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P. SANDESH, J.
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of plaintiffs before the Trial Court in O.S.No.64/2009 while seeking the relief of declaration to declare that the Mulageni right of the defendant in respect of the scheduled plot has been duly terminated and they have entitled to get joint vacant possession of the suit schedule property plot after dismantling the building therein and to direct the division of schedule plot into two equal shares by metes and bounds. It is urged that the grandfather of the 2nd plaintiff i.e., father’s father, late Brahmayya Shetty was the owner of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property bearing Sy.No.127/5A measuring 0.05 acres situated at Puttur kasaba Village, Puttur Taluk. The late Brahmayya Shetty had created a Mulageni lease in respect of 0.14 acres of land in Sy.No.127/5A in favour of one Gunapala Shetty as per registered document No.l-27/1951 dated 10.01.1951 of Sub-Registrar, Puttur that is marked as document Ex.P.1, the said Gunapala Shetty died in the
The court affirmed that a Mulageni tenant cannot alienate rights without consent, and lease termination can occur if rental obligations are breached or if the tenant renounces tenancy.
The court upheld the presumption of joint family property, ruling that no valid partition had been established, thus entitling the plaintiffs to their shares.
Joint family property is presumed until proven otherwise; prior partition must be established by metes and bounds to be valid.
Parties must prove their title claims in property disputes, and long-standing adverse possession can extinguish demand for title.
A suit for declaration of title over undivided property without partition is not maintainable, reaffirming the necessity of establishing specific ownership for claims over joint property.
The judgment emphasizes the legal principle that mutation does not confer title and a co-sharer cannot relinquish their right without executing a relinquishment deed.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
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
