Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
V. SRISHANANDA, J
MUNIMALLAIAH S/O CHIKKANNA – Appellant
Versus
SRI MADAPPA DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claim of ownership based on prior sale deed. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. defendants assert ownership through earlier sale deed. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. trial court's findings on ownership and possession. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. plaintiff argues misplacement of burden of proof. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. defendants argue validity of the trial court's findings. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. evidence supports defendants' claims over the property. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 7. counter-claims are permissible in injunction suits. (Para 49 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)
The present second appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the validity of the judgment passed in O.S.No.70/2001, dated 30.01.2004, on the file of Additional II Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, which was confirmed in R.A.No.83/2004, dated 17.06.2008, on the file of Fast Track Court III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.
2. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience as per their original ranking before the Trial Court.
3. Appeal came to be admitted on the follow
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
