Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
C.M.JOSHI
Somashekharappa Basavanneppa Kalakoti – Appellant
Versus
Dayananda Chittaranjan Kalakoti – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff sought recovery based on encroachment and partition. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. suit filed within limitation based on discovery of encroachment. (Para 20 , 21 , 29) |
| 3. adverse possession must be substantiated with clear evidence and timelines. (Para 22 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Trial Court in O.S.No.207/2007 and First Appellate Court in R.A.No.18/2010, whereby, the suit came to be decreed, the defendant is in appeal before this Court under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘C.P.C’).
a. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.207/2007 seeking recovery of possession of the property bearing Survey No.15/1+2+3+4, measuring 24 guntas out of a total of 10 acres 3 guntas situated at Akkur village of Haveri Taluka. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property totally measuring 10 acres 3 guntas was allotted to the share of plaintiff in a partition dated 15.11.2002 between himself and his father. Accordingly, his name was appearing in respect of the said property in revenue records.
c. A measurement was done through the surveyor and he confirmed that there was encroachment of the suit schedule pro
The courts affirmed that encroachment claims must be substantiated by factual evidence, and that any claim of adverse possession must be clearly demonstrated over a specific duration, aligning with s....
A plaintiff proved ownership of property, and the court upheld findings on encroachment based on admissions and evidentiary assessments.
Point of law: Person raising plea of adverse possession must necessarily first admit the ownership of true owner of relevant property to the knowledge of that owner. In the instant case, the defendan....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the Advocate Commissioner's report to determine the extent of encroachment and ownership of the disputed property.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence such as the Advocate Commissioner's report, sale-deeds, and the FMB sketch to confirm encroachment and shortage of land, a....
(1) Adverse Possession—Mere possession cannot be deemed to be adverse possession merely on the basis of denial of another’s title over property for that would be violative of basic rights of actual o....
Ownership must be proven through title documentation; mere possession does not grant rights against true ownership. Legal title supersedes claims of adverse possession without sufficient proof.
The plaintiff must prove ownership and encroachment claims effectively; mere possession does not suffice without credible evidence.
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
