Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH
Lingappa – Appellant
Versus
Mark D’Lima, S/o Late Lucy D’Souza – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and possession of the property. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. evidence evaluation and court's affirmation of possession. (Para 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. arguments regarding error in judgment and evidentiary issues. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. conclusion on appeal dismissal. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
H.P.SANDESH, J.
This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent.
2. This second appeal is filed against concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and defendants are interfering with possession of the plaintiff’s property. It is also the specific case of the plaintiff that Site No.294 belongs to the plaintiff and also contend that other children of Smt. Lucy D'Souza have released their undivided 4/5th right, title and interest in the suit schedule property to their brother Mark D’lima, who is the plaintiff. It is the further case that house Site bearing No.295 which is situated on the west of the schedule property was allotted to one Smt. Ajjanu H
Concurrent findings confirmed the plaintiff's ownership and possession rights over Site No.294, rejecting claims of boundary interference by defendants.
Documentary evidence prevails over oral claims in property disputes; adverse possession must be substantiated by valid evidence.
Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld; lack of evidence for obstruction and indeterminate property claims negate injunction request.
Concurrent findings established that ownership rests with the plaintiff based on a valid title deed while the defendant's claims of property ownership and legality of construction were unsupported.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting the affirmative issue, and adverse possession requires the party to set up their own adverse title and remain in exclusive possession hostile to the tr....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that ownership of property and entitlement to relief are determined based on the evidence of ownership and possession presented by the parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession follows title, and in cases of vacant property, the person able to establish title is considered to be in possession. The court....
The approved layout plan Ex.P-17 is crucial in determining the existence of the disputed sites and establishing ownership and possession rights.
The court affirmed that a plaintiff with established possession is entitled to a permanent injunction against interference, supported by valid ownership documentation.
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
