Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.MANMADHA RAO
Shekar Poojary S/o Annappa Poojary – Appellant
Versus
Jayashree W/o Ravi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
1. The present Regular Second Appeal is filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2018, in R.A.No.4/2016, passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady D.K (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first appellate Court’) and confirm the judgement and decree dated 26.09.2015, in O.S.102/2011, passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, at Belthangady, D.K (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court and respondent before the first appellate Court and the respondent herein is the defendant before the trial Court and appellant before the first appellate Court.
3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are referred to as per the rankings before the trial Court.
4. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.102/2011 against the defendant on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, at Belthangady, D.K. for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his men, partisan heirs, legal representatives or any other person claiming right under the defendant from interfering with the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property.
5. The plaintiff instit
A claimant must establish exclusive settled possession and document rights to land for relief against interference; admissions impacting access rights must be substantiated.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that ownership of property and entitlement to relief are determined based on the evidence of ownership and possession presented by the parties.
First appellate courts must thoroughly review evidence and provide reasoned judgments; failure to do so necessitates remanding cases for reevaluation.
A right of easement may exist if one landowner has no accessible route to their property except through another's land, but the plaintiff must establish the existence of such a pathway.
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 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.
The validity of property grants cannot be dismissed solely based on the date of issuance, emphasizing the presumption of truth in revenue records until proven otherwise.
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
