Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
C.M. JOSHI
S. Pakeerappa, S/o. Late kuntaerappa, Since Deceased By His Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C M JOSHI, J.
This appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. by the plaintiff assailing the concurrent finding of the Trial Court in O.S.No.7/2003 dated 08.02.2006 and the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.37/2006 dated 08.09.2009.
2. The factual matrix that is necessary for the purpose of this appeal is as below:
i) The plaintiff filed suit for declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property by adverse possession having enjoyed it for more than 73 years since from the lifetime of his grandfather and sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit schedule property and thereby interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It was stated that his father had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since the year 1930 and he died in 1949. Thereafter the possession and enjoyment continued with the father of the appellants, till he died and thereafter the possession is continued with the appellants. It is contended that everyone including the defendants are in the knowledge that the plaintiff is cultivating and raising crops in the su
To establish adverse possession, one must demonstrate continuous and hostile possession against the true owner with intent to dispossess, which was not proven in this case.
The court reiterated that for a claim of adverse possession, continuous possession over 30 years must be proven explicitly; mere long possession without asserting hostile title does not suffice.
To claim adverse possession, one must establish continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, acknowledging the title of the true owner.
Unregistered relinquishment deeds cannot establish ownership, and adverse possession claims require clear proof of exclusive possession and continuity which the plaintiff failed to provide.
Adverse possession requires the defendant to prove continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, which was not established in this case.
The appellants' possession of the suit property is the settled possession and it has to be protected until they are evicted by due process of law. The respondent had lost the right to claim declarati....
Civil Courts have jurisdiction to grant injunctions to protect possession, even when ownership claims are disputed, emphasizing the necessity of protecting peaceful possession under law.
Adverse possession requires stringent proof of uninterrupted and adverse use; plaintiffs failed to establish necessary elements leading to dismissal of their claim.
The judgment established that to claim adverse possession, the possessor must demonstrate hostile animus, peaceful, open, and continuous possession, and the abandonment of rights by the true owner. P....
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
