Back
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. H.P. SANDESH, J
SMT. NALINI R. SHETTY – Appellant
Versus
SMT. C. PADMA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs' claims regarding joint family ownership and historical transactions are established. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. contemporary claims versus historical transactions raise questions on ownership rights. (Para 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. assessment of claims based on prima facie requirements in temporary injunction contexts. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 4. appelate court ruling highlights necessity for substantiated ownership claims and transaction validation. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 21.02.2023 passed on I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 5 in O.S.No.487/2022, on the file of the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief of partition and they contended that one late V.Chinnanna @ Chinnappa was the kartha of Hindu undivided joint family and he is the original owner of the property bearing Sy.No.119/1 for an extent of 1 acre 26 guntas including 3 guntas of karab land and in Sy.No.119/2 to an extent of 1 acre 4 in Bilekahalli village, Bengaluru, which is mo
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
