Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI
Kareem Khan, Since Deceased By Legal Representatives – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, By Its Chief Secretary – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2013 passed in R.A. No.168 of 2012 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shivamogga and the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2012 passed in O.S. No.515 of 2007 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Shivamogga.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellants were the legal representatives of the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.
3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the owner and has acquired title by way of adverse possession and a consequential relief of confirmation of possession over the suit schedule property.
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit land was in possession and enjoyment of his father-Usman Khan, who was a tenant under the inamdar before the introduction of the Inams Abolition Act and the inamdar also executed a registered sale deed with respect to the suit schedule property in favour of Usman Kh
The court reiterated that for a claim of adverse possession, continuous possession over 30 years must be proven explicitly; mere long possession without asserting hostile title does not suffice.
To claim adverse possession, one must establish continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, acknowledging the title of the true owner.
To establish adverse possession, one must demonstrate continuous and hostile possession against the true owner with intent to dispossess, which was not proven in this case.
Adverse possession requires the defendant to prove continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, which was not 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.
Claim of adverse possession requires open, continuous possession with knowledge to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in dismissal.
Ownership and possession must be substantiated by evidence, and the defense of possession through a sale agreement requires proof of readiness to perform contract obligations; otherwise, it does not ....
The judgment emphasizes the legal principles of adverse possession, including the requirements of open, clear, continuous, and hostile possession, burden of proof, and the need for a substantial ques....
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
