Back
M. A. ABDUL HAKHIM
Usha M. S, D/o. Late Balraj – Appellant
Versus
C. Sadashiva Acharya S/o. Achutha Acharya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Appellant is the legal heir of the defendant in the suit. The suit was for recovery of possession of Plaint A scheduled property on the strength of the title. As per the plaint allegations, Plaint A schedule property originally belonged to one Sheik Ahmmed as per Ext.A2 Assignment dated 25.11.1978; that the said Sheik Ahmmed executed Ext.A1 Sale Deed dt. 12.02.1981 conveying the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff; that the defendant has 8 cents of land on the western side of the plaint A schedule property; that the defendant constructed a house in a portion of A schedule property; that the defendant shifted her residence to the newly constructed house in Plaint A schedule property; and that though the plaintiff demanded to surrender vacant possession of the Plaint A Schedule property, the defendant refused to surrender the same to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit was filed.
2. The defendant contested the suit by filing a Written Statement and raising a counterclaim. The defendant contended inter alia that the defendant is in exclusive possession of ‘X’ schedule property described in the Written Statement as per document No.4/1982 of SRO Manjeshwar; that there was a
A party must file a composite appeal against both the suit and counterclaim decrees; failure to do so results in res-judicata barring the appeal.
The court established that a unified decree involving both a suit and counter claim can be appealed as a single entity, and failure to raise res judicata at the appropriate stage results in waiver of....
Single appeal challenging trial court's decree in suit and dismissal of counter-claim held not maintainable; separate appeals required as counter-claim is cross-suit. First appellate judgment set asi....
(1) Counter-claim would be treated as an independent plaint and would be governed by procedural Rules applicable to plaints.(2) For filing of appeal against dismissal of a counter-claim, there has to....
The main legal point established is that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to show adverse possession, and failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the claim.
Possession under a contract is not permissive if occupant asserts ownership; adverse possession requires clear hostility, which was lacking in this case.
Parties must prove their title claims in property disputes, and long-standing adverse possession can extinguish demand for title.
A concurrent finding of facts affirmed by appellate courts must be based on evidence; mere possession without title does not confer rights against established ownership.
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
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
