Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, By Its Secretary – Appellant
Versus
Sunitha Naik, D/o. Ananda Naik, Represented By Their Natural Guardian Jaya Naika, S/o. Somla Naik – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2013 passed in RA No. 44 of 2011 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, and the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2011 passed in OS No. 13 of 2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Harihara.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were defendant Nos.2 and 3, respondent No.1 to 3 were the plaintiffs and respondent No.4 was defendant No.1.
3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for a declaration to declare that they are the owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession and also sought for permanent injunction.
5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, one Anandaa Naik, son of Somla Naik, the Plaintiffs' father who died on 17.10.2007. Ananda Naik’s wife, during his lifetime had left him and the plaintiffs gone out of the family deserting him and the plaintiffs. Ananda Naik during his lifetime made a will dated 10.04.2007 bequeathing his pro
To claim adverse possession, one must establish continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, acknowledging the title of the true owner.
The court reiterated that for a claim of adverse possession, continuous possession over 30 years must be proven explicitly; mere long possession without asserting hostile title does not suffice.
To establish adverse possession, one must demonstrate continuous and hostile possession against the true owner with intent to dispossess, which was not proven in this case.
Unregistered relinquishment deeds cannot establish ownership, and adverse possession claims require clear proof of exclusive possession and continuity which the plaintiff failed to provide.
Persons asserting ownership by adverse possession must demonstrate continuous, hostile, and exclusive possession, while failure to establish these elements invalidates claims.
Adverse possession requires the defendant to prove continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, which was not established in this case.
Ownership of property by female Hindus is absolute under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, irrespective of financing sources, and establishing adverse possession requires clear evidence of host....
Claim of adverse possession requires continuous, open, and hostile possession for a statutory period, along with intention to possess against the true owner, significantly impacting the title of the ....
A claim for adverse possession must plead essential facts including the true owner's identity and hostile possession; mere possession lacks sufficiency for title. Claims must also meet limitation req....
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
