Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
B.S. Revanna, S/o. Late Siddaiah – Appellant
Versus
Puttathayamma, W/o. Late M. Ramegowda, Since Deceased By Lr's- Sri. R. Hari Prasad, S/o. Late Ramanna – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.1626/2019 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.10.2023 passed by the XLI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent – plaintiff for eviction / ejectment and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule ‘B’ immovable property was decreed in her favour against the appellant.
2. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to by their respective ranks before the Trial Court.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the defendant for ejectment / eviction directing the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule ‘B’ immovable property to the plaintiff and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the defendant, who filed his written statement, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
“1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is owner of the suit schedule–A and B properties?
2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant has forged the signature of Plaintiff and fabricated document in respect of ‘B’ schedule property
Ownership established through documentary evidence; defendant failed to prove lawful possession or title, justifying eviction.
The plaintiffs must establish their title to claim possession, and lack of evidence to support damages claim leads to dismissal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering material aspects and appreciating the findings of the trial court in property dispute cases.
Ownership claims require clear evidence, and adverse possession is incompatible with claims of title, as established in this case.
Unregistered relinquishment deeds cannot establish ownership, and adverse possession claims require clear proof of exclusive possession and continuity which the plaintiff failed to provide.
The court affirmed that ownership claims must be supported by documentary evidence, and the principle of preponderance of probability governs determinations of title and tenancy.
The need for foundational evidence for leading secondary evidence and the limitations on proving possession of immoveable property.
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
