IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V SRISHANANDA
P Yellappa, S/o Papanna – Appellant
Versus
Krishnachar, S/o Late Veerabhadrachar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V Srishananda, J.
Heard Sri K.Bhaskar, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.
2. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per their original ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. Unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.4636/2002 is the appellant challenging the dismissal of the said suit by the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2008 on the file of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
Plaintiff filed the abovementioned suit contending that his father had purchased the agricultural land measuring 2.16 acres in land bearing Sy.No.9/1 of T.Dasarahalli Village under registered sale deed dated 08.11.1954. Its northern boundary is a Government oni. Father of the plaintiff and father of the defendants formed unauthorised residential layout in their land and sold those sites.
5. In the year 1995, T.Dasarahalli Grama Panchayath became City Municipal Council and thereafter regular roads were laid in the village. Despite laying of such roads, the government oni or the pathway continued to be in existence and
The plaintiff must demonstrate ownership or lawful possession to maintain a suit for permanent injunction; lack thereof results in dismissal.
The plaintiff must prove the existence of a path through the defendant's land to claim permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit must be framed as per the requirement of Order 7 Rule 3 CPC.
The court determined that the plaintiff's apprehension of encroachment was unfounded given existing road status and affirmed previous dismissals based on proper judicial analyses.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of an easementary right based on continuous usage and the partition deed, allowing for the grant of perpetual injunction even in....
The court established that an easementary right can be acquired through long-term, uninterrupted use, even if the specific phrase 'as of right' is not explicitly stated in the pleadings, provided the....
A party claiming an easement must provide clear evidence of long-standing use, and failure to do so can result in dismissal of the claim.
A party cannot seek relief in a new suit while suppressing material facts from previous related litigations, as this undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
Land Acquisition - Legitimate right, title and possession of property - It is well settled principle of law that the plaintiff could not have been forcibly dispossessed of his property without resort....
The court emphasized that granting a temporary injunction requires clear evidence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, which were inadequately established by the pla....
The Court emphasized the protection of the Defendants' right of way over a specific land and prevented the Plaintiffs from interfering with it.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.