Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH
M. R. Lakshmanachari, S/o. Sri. Ramachari – Appellant
Versus
K. P. Narayanaswamy. S/o. Late Pillaiah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P.SANDESH, J.
1. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the property originally belongs to the defendant and defendant sold the property in favour of one Chaithra in the year 2006 i.e., ‘A’ schedule property and subsequently, the very same Chaithra sold the property in favour of the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 29.01.2010 and thereafter, all the revenue records are also changed in the name of the plaintiff and defendant also aware of the same. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the month of January 2010, the defendant has requested the plaintiff to stay for few days and defendant has entered into the said portion with the permission of the plaintiff measuring an extent of north to south 10 feet and east to west 35 feet, totally, measuring 350 feet which is more fully described in the ‘B’ schedule property. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant had filed a suit in O.S.No.113/2012 a
The legitimacy of a sale deed prevails unless convincingly challenged, affirming that possession cannot be disturbed without due process.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff's claim of ownership based on a valid and unchallenged Deed of Sale prevails over a defendant's claim of adverse possession and....
The courts affirmed ancestral ownership over fraudulent claims and established that adverse possession requires unequivocal evidence, which was lacking from the defendants' assertions.
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish ownership through valid documentation, and appellate courts uphold concurrent findings unless legally erroneous.
The burden to prove title in a property dispute lies with the plaintiff, requiring evidence such as a registered sale deed, even when seeking alternative relief of possession.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
The registered sale deed carries a presumption of genuineness, and the burden of proof lies on the defendants to establish it as a sham, which they failed to do.
Proper party inclusion is essential in property disputes, and claims of fraud must be substantiated by convincing 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
