Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH
Sanjeeva Kulala – Appellant
Versus
Umakanth Kamath, S/o. A. Vamana Kamath – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P.SANDESH, J.
1. This matter is listed for admission. I have heard the counsel appearing for the appellants. This second appeal is also filed against the concurrent finding.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that, late Paddu Handthi and the defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Survey No.38/16. The specific case of the plaintiff before the Court is that, item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties and other properties were granted on occupancy right to A. Vamana Kamath who is the father of the plaintiff. He has executed a registered settlement deed dated 02.08.2007 in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to plaint ‘A’ schedule properties and other properties. The plaintiff purchased item No.3 of plaint ‘A’ schedule property from Sanjeeva Kamat and Vrinda Kamanth through a registered sale deed dated 08.11.2003. Since the date of acquisition by the plaintiff, he has been in actual possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'A' schedule property.
3. It is contended that the portion of survey No.38/16 of Kalathur village measuring 1.75 acres and 25 cents, now bearing Survey No.38/31 (1.15 acres) and Sur
The court held that mandatory injunction can be granted based on possession claims without requiring a prior declaration of title, provided the plaintiff substantiates ownership rights.
A plaintiff proved ownership of property, and the court upheld findings on encroachment based on admissions and evidentiary assessments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that convincing evidence is required to establish settled possession through adverse possession, and mere inferential circumstances are not suffici....
The law establishes that possession of property is sufficient for injunction relief, even in absence of title documents if ownership is admitted.
Concurrent findings confirmed the plaintiff's ownership and possession rights over Site No.294, rejecting claims of boundary interference by defendants.
The court affirmed that a plaintiff with established possession is entitled to a permanent injunction against interference, supported by valid ownership documentation.
A suit for fixation of boundary cannot be a shortcut or substitute for recovery of possession and that the remedy if any, of the plaintiff was to sue for recovery of possession on the strength of tit....
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
