Back
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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. existence and basis of opposition in a property possession case. (Para 1 , 3 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding adverse possession and relief sought. (Para 4 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. analysis of prior cases and claims regarding title. (Para 5 , 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. conclusion affirming trial court's decision. (Para 7 , 13 , 19) |
| 5. explanation of limitations on the right to sue for possession. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
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.
A party cannot claim adverse possession without admitting the other party's title; the limitation period does not apply if adverse possession is not proven.
Suit for possession – Counter claim - In the absence of a pleading, mere production of judgment will not be sufficient to record a finding as to whether the plaintiff ought to have sought for possess....
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 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.
Point of Law : It is a well-settled principle of law that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', that is, peaceful, open and continuou....
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....
Possession must be open, continuous, and adverse to establish adverse possession; failure to prove this invalidates claims of ownership.
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
