Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V SRISHANANDA
G N Thukkaram Since Deceased By Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Sulochana Bai W/o Late G L Perumal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V.SRISHANANDA, J.
1. Heard Sri. Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. Unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants challenging the dismissal of the suit in OS No.15147/2005 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore.
3. Facts in the brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
3.1 A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'):
DESCRIPTION
All the part and parcel of the property No.24, 'E' No.4th Street, Old Madres Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008, measuring east to west on the Northern side 22 feet inches 21, 3 inches on the southern side: North to South on East 27 feet 4 inches, on the West 29 feet 6 inches, totally measuring 617.5 Sq.ft encroached by the defendants measuring 221.4 sq.ft as shown and bounded on east by wide passage: West by Road "E" No.4th Street, North by House No.23 and South by House No.25.
3.2 The suit is filed with a prayer for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property and an order of permanent injunction and eviction of seventh defendant from the po
Ownership must be established through substantial evidence; mere possession and prior admissions are insufficient to prove title in property disputes.
In property disputes, proof of ownership and lawful possession must be established; mere claims without supporting evidence lead to dismissal of injunction requests.
Plaintiffs must show joint entitlement to property; mere relationship is insufficient if contrary evidence exists such as prior settlements and alienations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiffs failed to prove their right in the ancestral properties and that the Sanad was issued in favor of Mohammadgouse, the ancestor o....
In the absence of established oral partition, co-owners have equal shares in the property, as per Section 47 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Ownership must be substantiated by credible documentary evidence; mere revenue entries are insufficient to establish title against documented claims.
The plaintiff failed to establish ownership of the suit properties through oral partition, leading to the dismissal of his appeal against concurrent findings of fact.
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
