Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
UMESH M. ADIGA
Lakshmamma, W/o. Late B.C. Chanappa – Appellant
Versus
K. Lingegowda, Dead By Hirs Lr's- Smt. Venkatalakshmamma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
UMESH M. ADIGA, J.
Both these appeals arise out of judgment and decree dated 16.06.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Channapattana, District Ramanagar, which arose out of judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009, passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Channapatna, in OS.No.98/2005. The suit was filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the First Appellate Court confirmed the said judgment and decree.
2. RSA No.1324/2012 is filed by the plaintiff and RSA No.1762/2012 is filed by defendant No.1. Hence, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the suit property bearing Khata No.166/3 measuring 35 feet east to west and 80 feet north to south was a site formed by Mallur Mandal Panchayath along with other sites. The Khata No.166/3 was granted in the name of one Kempangowda by the Pradhan of Mallur Mandal Panchayath on 25.01.1991 and the said grantee paid a sum of Rs.2,800/- for the grant of the land. The plaintiff purchased the said property by a registered Sale De
The court affirmed that mere possession claims based on panchayat records without substantive proof do not establish legal ownership, emphasizing the necessity of lawful possession documentation.
Possession claims require adequate documentation; absence of evidence for acquisition invalidates the defendant's title, affirming the plaintiffs' rights based on a registered sale deed.
Possession follows title, and the concept of possession in law was crucial in determining the ownership and possession of the disputed property.
Trespassers cannot obtain an injunction against true owners without proving identifiable rights in the property.
Possession follows title; entries in revenue records do not confer ownership. A suit for injunction is maintainable without seeking declaration of title when possession is established.
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 property disputes where neither party has a valid title, the person in prior possession is entitled to recover possession, and a suit for recovery of possession is maintainable even if the title i....
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
