Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI
B. L. Revanna, S/o. B. M. Lingaiah – Appellant
Versus
Ramanna, S/o. Donne Obalappa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's long-term possession of property. (Para 3) |
| 2. assessment of evidence in property dispute. (Para 4 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. conflicting claims on possession. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of lower judgments. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2013 passed in R.A.No.302/2007 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri and the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.89/2002 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Madhugiri.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondent was the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for permanent injunction.
3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:
The land bearing Sy.No.6 of Kurihalli village totally measuring 17 acres originally belongs to the Government. The plaintiff is in unauthorised occupation and cultivation and in enjoyment of the suit schedule property for the past 25 years to an extent of 3
Possession of property is protected under law, and eviction can only occur through due legal process; previous court findings confirmed the plaintiff's rightful possession and the inadequacy of the d....
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.
Possession of property is protected by law, and a party must be evicted through due process, as established in permanent injunction suits.
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.
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.
Ownership of immovable property cannot be established through an unregistered sale deed, which is inadmissible in evidence under the Indian Registration Act, affirming that possession follows title.
Civil Courts have jurisdiction to grant injunctions to protect possession, even when ownership claims are disputed, emphasizing the necessity of protecting peaceful possession under law.
Possession established through admissions is sufficient for granting permanent injunction against unlawful interference.
The title of a vendor must be established to support a claim of ownership over property, where mere possession is inadequate under property law.
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
