Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAJESH RAI K.
Yarraguntappa S/o Dodda Chithappa – Appellant
Versus
Avaneerappa S/o Badeerappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH RAI K., J.
1. This is defendant's second appeal.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of suit schedule property.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the lawful owner in possession and enjoyment of land measuring 13 acres 6 guntas including kharab in Sy.No.20/1 situated at K.T. Halli Village, Nidgal Hobli, Pavagada Taluk, (for brevity "the suit schedule property") and the same was acquired by him by virtue of compromise decree passed in O.S.No.29/1992. After the said compromise, he dug a borewell in the suit schedule property and also obtained electrical supply for lifting water from the said borewell. By using water from the said borewell, he developed his property.
4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant, who is an adjacent landowner towards eastern side of the suit schedule property, without having any right, interest or possession over the suit schedule property, unnecessarily denied the plaintiff's title by making unlawful attempts to interfere with the plaintiff's possession. Further, the defendant had made unlawful claim over the suit schedule borewell and installed pump set. It is
The plaintiff's request for permanent injunction was denied as he failed to prove adverse possession and the defendant was adjudged the lawful owner of the disputed land.
A suit for permanent injunction is maintainable without seeking a declaration of title when the defendant admits the plaintiff's title and possession.
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.
A suit for permanent injunction, without seeking a declaration of title, is not maintainable when ownership is disputed; a comprehensive claim is required to address possession and title.
A suit for injunction is not maintainable without a concurrent suit for declaration of title when ownership is disputed, emphasizing the necessity of primary evidence in possession claims.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish possession and incidental title to the property. Clear title supported by documents is necessary to claim perm....
Suit filed for perpetual injunction by plaintiff, when there is cloud over title is not maintainable.
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.
In actions for injunctions, plaintiffs must demonstrate lawful possession and seek a declaration of title when ownership is disputed; failure to do so renders the suit unmaintainable.
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
