THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
C M JOSHI
BHIMAPPA LAXMAPPA KURI – Appellant
Versus
MAHADEVAPPA GADIGEPPA CHILAMUR – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C. M. JOSHI, J.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of O.S.No.60/1998 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Saundatti, the defendants had filed R.A.No.7/2007 before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Saundatti which came to be allowed by the judgement and decree dated 07.10.2009 and therefore, the defendants are before this Court in Second Appeal.
2. The factual matrix of the case that is relevant for the purpose of this appeal may be summarised as bellow:
a) It was contented by the plaintiff that he was given in adoption to one Gadigeppa when he was a minor and Mayavva was adoptive mother. After death of the Gadigeppa, the plaintiff and his mother were looking after the properties and thereafter, the plaintiff purchased block No.217 measuring, 7 acres, 4 guntas in the year 1966. The other property block No.218, measuring 5 acres, 8 guntas was granted by the Land Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
b) Block No.217 and 218 measuring 7 acres 5 guntas and 5 acres 8 guntas respectively situated at Hirur village of Saundatti Taluka were acquired by the plaintiff, one by way of purchase in the year 1964 from the income of the adoptive fami
Vasantha (dead) Thr.LR vs. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (dead) Thr.Lrs.
Venkataraja and others vs. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal (D) Thr.Lrs. and others
Corporation of the City of Bangalore vs. M. Papaiah and another
A suit for declaration may be maintained even if the plaintiff is not in possession, provided a consequential relief is sought, as mutation does not establish ownership.
(1) There is no bar in Specific Relief Act, 1963 in granting standalone declaratory decree.(2) Discretion in granting declaratory decree on ownership cannot be exercised by Court to deny such relief ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for declaration may be maintainable even if not coupled with the prayer for partition, but the plaintiff must seek further relief than ....
(1) In an injunction suit, cause of action is recurring – Suit seeking declaration and injunction is per se not barred in view of withdrawal of earlier suit.(2) Bar on subsequent suit – Whether plain....
A suit for mere declaration of ownership without seeking relief of possession is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
The failure to seek the relief of recovery of possession rendered the suit not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
A suit for declaration of ownership without possession is maintainable under special statutes prohibiting land transfer to protect rights of original grantees, particularly for Scheduled Caste/Schedu....
Point of law - The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i....
A plaintiff not in possession must seek recovery of possession to maintain a suit for injunction; failure renders the suit non-maintainable.
(1) Adverse Possession – Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blend of fact and law – Efficacy of adverse possession law in most jurisdictions depends on strong limitation s....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.