Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G. UMA
Mohammed Sikandar, S/o. Late. Mohammed Jaffer – Appellant
Versus
Mohammed Sardar, S/o Mohammed Khalendar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M G UMA, J.
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.03.2006 (Old No.277/1991) on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegal, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court', for short), are impugning the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2007 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, which was confirmed vide judgment dated 01.07.2009 passed in RA.No.71/2007 on the file of the learned District Judge, Chamarajnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court', for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
3. Facts of the case in brief are that, plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 have filed the suit OS.No.277/1991 which was later renumbered as OS.No.03/2006 before the Trial Court, against the defendant seeking declaration that they are the absolute owners in possession of the properties and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession and enjoyment. The schedule attached to the plaint describes 5 agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.633/A measuring 52 cents, Sy.No.633/D measuring 45.35 acres, Sy.No.352 measuring 75 cents, Sy.No.353/B(1) measuring 28 cent
The Court affirmed that the Kazi position does not confer hereditary property rights, emphasizing shared ancestral ownership over property despite claims for exclusive rights.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs' claims over certain properties were invalid due to prior sales, emphasizing the necessity of declarations regarding property ownership in joint familial contexts ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiffs failed to prove their right in the ancestral properties and that the Sanad was issued in favor of Mohammadgouse, the ancestor o....
Partition claims require proof of joint family funds and must be substantiated to challenge existing settlements.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of daughters to claim partition in coparcenary property under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as per the l....
The bequeath made by a person belonging to Scheduled Caste of the granted land does not amount to 'transfer' and is not prohibited under Sec. 4 of the PTCL Act. The bequeath of land under a Will does....
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
