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

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5800

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
SRI SRINIVASA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Y K NARAYANA SHARMA ,Respondent Advocate:

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.25 in O.S.No.325/2011 dated 13.11.2020 by the IV Additional I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit seeking declaration that the Impugned Communication dated 24.01.2011 is illegal, null and void and not enforceable and to further declare that the plaint schedule property is situated within Survey No.152 of Hebbal Village, Mysore Taluk and also sought for consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has been in occupation of the property based on an unregistered sale deed dated 25.08.1984 and ever since he has been in possession of the property. One Siddegowda sold the revenue site in favour of one Gowramma through an unregistered sale deed dated 25.08.1984 and put her in possession of the property. Then Gowramma sold the property in favour of the plaintiff through an unregistered sale deed dated 10.01.1995 and put the plaintiff in possession of the property and ever since, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The officials of Mysore City Corporation, Mysore issued

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