Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
K. NATARAJAN, J
SUSHEELAMMA – Appellant
Versus
T. LAKSHMAN REDDY – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and possession claims. (Para 1 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. defendants challenge plaintiff's claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 27) |
| 3. court's evaluation of evidence. (Para 18 , 19 , 22 , 35 , 44 , 58) |
| 4. principle of ownership and property rights. (Para 36 , 52 , 56) |
| 5. dismissal of appeals. (Para 60 , 61) |
CAV JUDGMENT
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and counsel for the respondents.
4. In RFA No.622/2015, the appellants are the legal heirs of defendant No.3 and defendant Nos.4 and 5, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are defendant Nos.1, 6 and 2 before the trial court.
6. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial court is that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property and seeking for injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property with other reliefs.
8. It is further contended that the name of the father of plaintiff came to be entered in all the revenue records i.e., RTC from 1974-75 to 1989-90. During the lifetime
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
