Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
E.S.INDIRESH
M. Krishnappa, S/o Late M. Muniyappa – Appellant
Versus
Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
E.S.INDIRESH, J.
These appeal are filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 25th April, 2014 passed in Original Suit No.583 of 2009 and Original Suit No.7995 of 2006 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), dismissing the suits filed by the plaintiff, seeking relief of declaration and injunction.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties in this appeal are referred to as per their raking before the Trial Court in Original Suit No.7995 of 2006.
3. The facts in nutshell for adjudication of these appeals are that the plaintiff filed suits seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. It is averred in the plaint that the grandfather of the plaintiff viz., Maistri Subba Hanumaiah had purchased the land to an extent of 4 acre 20 guntas in Survey No.14 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, as per the registered Sale Deed dated 15th February, 1936. Thereafter, the registered Deed of Settlement dated 22nd December, 1939 was executed by the grandfather of the pla
The court established that prior claims do not preclude current ownership rights of a specific land portion, reaffirming plaintiff's title after a thorough analysis of historic acquisitions and legal....
The need for a fair consideration of evidence and the requirement for the Government to disclose crucial evidence in land dispute cases.
The plaintiff must establish proof of absolute ownership and encroachment to succeed in property disputes, with evidence discrepancies adversely affecting claims.
Point of law: The principle of lis pendens is still settled principle of law. In this connection, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Peary, AIR 1978 All 318] has considered the scope o....
Boundaries specified in a sale deed prevail over measurements when determining property ownership.
Appellate courts can reverse trial court decisions if there's a clear misinterpretation of law or evidence, particularly concerning property title and possession.
A vendor cannot sell land they do not own; a suit for injunction is not maintainable without a declaratory relief establishing ownership.
The appellate court upheld the lower court's decree for injunction and permitted ongoing construction by the respondent, subject to the final decision in a related suit.
A plaintiff with clear title and possession can seek an injunction against interference, even in the face of disputed title, provided they substantiate their claims with appropriate 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
