Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.MANMADHA RAO
S. Ramalingeshwarasharma S/o Late S. Venkatsubramanya Chainlu – Appellant
Versus
S.L. Savithri W/o M.R. Sridhar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
1. The present Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff/appellant to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2018 in R.A.No.278/2016 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Mysuru (herein after referred to as ‘the first appellate Court’ for short) and set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2013 in O.S.No.1810/2009 on the file of the I Additional First Civil Judge and JMFC. at Mysuru (herein after referred to as ‘the trial Court’ for short).
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff/appellant before the Courts below and the respondent herein is the defendant/respondent before the Courts below.
3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.
4. The plaintiff filed the suit to declare that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the ‘C’ schedule property and to direct the defendant to hand-over vacant possession of ‘C’ schedule property.
5. The brief facts of the case are that:-
It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased plaint ‘A’ schedule property under a registered Sale Deed dated 16.12.2006 from Smt. Nagarathnamma, and subsequently purchased plaint ‘B’ schedule p
The plaintiff must prove ownership and encroachment claims effectively; mere possession does not suffice without credible evidence.
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....
Courts affirmed the principle that lack of exclusive rights over property precludes unauthorized construction, validating the injunction against encroachment.
[The court established that the burden of proof lies on the defendant to substantiate claims of ownership or tenancy, and failure to do so, coupled with admissions against interest, can lead to a jud....
The plaintiff must establish proof of absolute ownership and encroachment to succeed in property disputes, with evidence discrepancies adversely affecting claims.
A plaintiff proved ownership of property, and the court upheld findings on encroachment based on admissions and evidentiary assessments.
The main legal point established is the importance of considering all evidence, addressing objections, and following procedural requirements in property disputes, along with the applicability of the ....
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
