Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R. NATARAJ
RAMANNA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES – Appellant
Versus
SMT NEELAVATHAMMA (HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. NATARAJ, J.
1. The legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2009 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru city in O.S.No.2741/2005 by which, the suit for perpetual injunction was dismissed.
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.
3. (i) The suit in O.S.No.2741/2005 was filed for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and from demolishing the existing compound in any manner. The suit property is bearing No.35/6, Khata No.269, situated at Yelachenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring East to West 63 feet and North to South 25 feet, comprising a sump, pump set and enclosed by a compound.
(ii) The plaintiff claimed that he was the owner of the aforesaid property, having purchased it in terms of a sale deed dated 11.03.2005. He claimed that the land bearing Sy.No.20/4 of Yelachenahalli village belonged to Sri. M. Muniyappa who had formed residential sites which were assessed to tax by the erstwhile City
A suit for perpetual injunction is not maintainable when encroachment is established, particularly if the land has been acquired by the state, barring the plaintiff's cause of action.
The plaintiff must prove ownership outside any acquired land, and shifting the burden to the defendant is legally erroneous.
Suit filed for perpetual injunction by plaintiff, when there is cloud over title is not maintainable.
Claims of occupancy rights and adverse possession cannot coexist; an encroacher is not entitled to injunctive relief against the rightful owner.
Point of Law : Redemption of mortgage property – A party seeking injunction, has to prove his possession over the suit land from the date of accrual of cause of action.
Ownership claims must rely on substantive evidence, as documentary title prevails over mere revenue entries in property disputes.
A plaintiff must establish personal interest in the property to seek an injunction; mere possession without title is inadequate.
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
