Back
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Dagadu Dnyanu Diwase – Appellant
Versus
Prakash Dattatraya Diwase (since deceased), thr. Its heirs:- Vandana Prakash Diwase – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This Appeal is filed by the Appellants challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 19 May 2023 passed by the District Judge-2, Kolhapur allowing Regular Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2016 and reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 8 July 2016 passed by the 8th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Kolhapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 912 of 2014. On account of the impugned decree passed by the first Appellate Court, Plaintiff’s suit for recovery of possession of the suit property has been decreed with further directions to conduct an enquiry into mesne profits under Order 21 Rule 12(1C) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code). Appellants, who are Original Defendants, are aggrieved by the decision of the first Appellate Court and have filed the present Appeal.
2. House property bearing City Survey No. 1046-C/13/3 admeasuring 33.6 sq.mtrs and two rooms in the house constructed thereon on the first floor admeasuring 386 sq. ft at Kolhapur is the subject matter of the suit (suit property). Plaintiff's case, as pleaded in the plaint, is that the land bearing C.T.S. No.1046/13/9/13 admeasuring 127.3 sq.mtrs was owned by Mr. Annaso Gangadhar Athane. Out of that property, an area
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting joint ownership of a property, and failure to provide evidence of joint family income and pu....
A family member in possession of property granted through permissive usage occupies the status of a licensee. Such license is revocable at the owner's will, entitling the owner to recover possession ....
The appellate court determined that the First Appellate Court erred in not properly evaluating the ownership evidence, resulting in incorrect distribution of property rights and affirming the Plainti....
The appellate court misdirected its assessment, failing to recognize that property ownership and identity were sufficiently proven by prior deeds and tax records.
The court affirmed that mere occupation by a licensee does not confer ownership rights and emphasized the necessity for evidence in disputes over property ownership.
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 bars claims of benami ownership, and adverse possession requires clear evidence of hostile possession, which must be specifically pleaded and proven.
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
