Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
C M JOSHI
BHIMAPPA LAXMAPPA KURI – Appellant
Versus
MAHADEVAPPA GADIGEPPA CHILAMUR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case and parties involved (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's reason for judgment (Para 9 , 14 , 16 , 22 , 23) |
| 3. arguments presented by parties (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. application of section 34 of the specific relief act (Para 18 , 19 , 21) |
| 5. court's final order and dismissal of appeal (Para 24) |
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
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.
Court affirmed the right to declare property title under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, allowing declaratory relief without possession claim, while emphasizing prior suits' withdrawal does not ou....
(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.
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
