Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Sanna Thamappa (Dead) By Lrs.- Smt. Nagamma, W/o. Sanna Thammappa – Appellant
Versus
Eswarappa, S/o. Siddalingappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
1. Defendant nos.1(a) & 1(b) have preferred this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2007 passed in O.S.No.138/1999 by the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chitradurga.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. O.S.No.138/1999 is filed by respondent nos.1 to 8 herein with a prayer for passing a decree for recovery of possession of suit schedule property.
4. The appellants herein had filed written statement opposing the suit claim.
5. The Trial Court based on the rival pleadings, had framed the following issues in O.S.No.138/1999.
"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants came in possession of suit property on 8-6-98 after the dismissal of R.S.A.No.313/92?
2. Whether defendants prove th
In property disputes, once a plaintiff proves title, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish adverse possession; failure to do so results in the plaintiff's claim being upheld.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of adverse possession and its application to determine property rights and limitation.
Article 58 of Limitation Act prescribes limitation of three years from date when right, to sue first accrues to obtain a declaration.
The suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, allowing 12 years from the date of adverse possession, not Article 58.
Possession must be open, continuous, and adverse to establish adverse possession; failure to prove this invalidates claims of ownership.
A fresh suit for recovery of possession based on title after a partition decree is barred by Section 47 CPC; delivery is part of execution; adverse possession cannot defeat a decree holder where co-o....
The main legal point established is the stringent requirements for establishing adverse possession, including the need for hostile possession, open and continuous possession, and the burden of proof ....
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
Listen Article