Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH
Sharadamma, W/o. Late Basavarajiah H. – Appellant
Versus
A. Chandrashekharappa, S/o. Basappaa Asundi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's possession and property description. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. trial court findings on evidence. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. dismissal of appeal and rejection of injunction. (Para 7 , 8 , 11) |
| 4. first appellate court analysis and confirmation. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
H. P. SANDESH, J.
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S.No.65/2019 while seeking the relief of permanent injunction, it is contended that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. It is further contended that ‘A’ schedule property is the house property bearing Sl.No.221, assessment No.219/19-19 measuring 18.5 x 14.5 yards, situated at Kariganuru Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District. The plaintiff also described the suit ‘B’ property as mud road, situated towards the north of the suit schedule ‘A’ property and the defendants’ house. It is contended that suit schedule ‘A’ property is ancestral property. His father had constructed black tiled house in it in the year 1947. Since t
Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld; lack of evidence for obstruction and indeterminate property claims negate injunction request.
The court affirmed that a plaintiff with established possession is entitled to a permanent injunction against interference, supported by valid ownership documentation.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of documentary evidence in establishing possession and entitlement to property, and the burden of proof on the party contesting such claims.
Documentary evidence prevails over oral claims in property disputes; adverse possession must be substantiated by valid evidence.
Possession established through admissions is sufficient for granting permanent injunction against unlawful interference.
Concurrent findings confirmed the plaintiff's ownership and possession rights over Site No.294, rejecting claims of boundary interference by defendants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession follows title, and in cases of vacant property, the person able to establish title is considered to be in possession. The court....
To secure a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must establish lawful possession at the time of filing; mere historical claims without current evidence are insufficient.
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
