Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH
Lakshamamma W/o Late Mahadevu – Appellant
Versus
Nagamma W/o Late Kunduru Sidda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P.SANDESH, J.
On 12.11.2025, when this matter was listed for admission, this Court elaborately heard the matter and when this Court about to dictate the order, at that juncture, the counsel appearing for the appellants seeks 10 days time to negotiate the matter with the respondents. Hence, this Court granted time. Today, the counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants made an attempt to negotiate the matter with the respondents and the counsel for the respondents submits that parties are not in good terms and they are agitating this matter from 2009 and almost about 16 years has been elapsed and no chances of settlement. Hence, this Court heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction is that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession and defendants are interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
Adverse possession requires stringent proof of uninterrupted and adverse use; plaintiffs failed to establish necessary elements leading to dismissal of their claim.
Documentary evidence prevails over oral claims in property disputes; adverse possession must be substantiated by valid evidence.
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.
When there is a denial of title or a challenge raising a cloud, parties should file a suit for declaration of title, and adverse possession requires hostile possession denying the true owner's title.
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....
Unregistered relinquishment deeds cannot establish ownership, and adverse possession claims require clear proof of exclusive possession and continuity which the plaintiff failed to provide.
In a suit for injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, failing which the appeal may be dismissed.
To claim adverse possession, one must establish continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, acknowledging the title of the true owner.
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
