SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 27766

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, MR JUSTICE UMESH MADIGA, JJ
CO MATHEWS – Appellant
Versus
M/S SRIVATSA ESTATE PVT LTD – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:T V VIJAY RAGHAVAN ,Respondent Advocate: ISMAIL ZABIULLA FOR R1 TO R4

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court held that a registered partition deed cannot be altered by an unregistered MOU. (!) (!) - The defendant’s claim of adverse possession was rejected due to lack of continuous, hostile possession and due to admission of plaintiffs’ title. (!) (!) - Plaintiffs proved title through documentary evidence and were declared absolute owners of respective items with possession to be delivered by the defendant. (!) (!) (!) - The suit addresses whether the plaintiffs' titles and possession were proven and whether adverse possession defenses could succeed. (!) (!) - The court allowed reliefs including declaration of title and possession, with a structure for execution and joint petition if needed. (!) (!)

How to determine ownership and possession when a registered partition deed exists but an unregistered MOU attempts to alter shares?

What is the requirement and proof for adverse possession to be valid against registered title?

What is the proper remedy and declaration when plaintiffs prove title and possession against encroachment and an unregistered agreement?


CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)

By judgment dated 13.07.2016 the Senior Civil Judge at Madikeri decreed the suit declaring the plaintiffs to be the owner of the suit properties and directed the legal representatives of the defendant to hand over possession thereof to the plaintiffs within a month and aggrieved by the same the legal representatives of the defendant have preferred this appeal.

2. The substance of the pleadings is as follows :

Under a partition deed dated 11.09.1984, four persons namely Smt. Acheyamma Oomen, C.O.Mathews, K.T.Mathews and Leelamma Mathews effected partition of the suit properties and other properties that belonged to them. The properties described in ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the partition deed fell to the share of K.T.Mathews and Leelamma Mathews respectively and the property described in schedule ‘A’ of the partition deed was allotted to C.O.Mathews, the defendant. On 12.06.1987 K.T.Mathews and Leelamma Mathews jointly sold the properties that fell to their shares to a partnership firm called M/s Carolina Plantations and put it in possession of the properties. Under three sale dates dated 02.09.1991 Carolina Plantations sold all its pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top