Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. V SRISHANANDA, J
SMT.NAVANEETHAMMA W/O. LATE THIPPAIAH AGED 85 YEARS – Appellant
Versus
NARAYANAPPA S/O. CHIKKA VENKATARAMANAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details on property ownership and occupation (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. defendants' arguments against plaintiff's claims (Para 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and judgments (Para 23 , 33 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 58 , 62) |
| 4. importance of title deeds over revenue documents (Para 47 , 48 , 56 , 59) |
| 5. final judgment and order set-aside (Para 64 , 65) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
2. Defendants are in appeal challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5284/1993 in respect of the following immovable properties, hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’.
East by: Vacant site earlier owned by Ramaiah, Son of Pillaiah and now purchased by defendant No.2 Sri T.Narayanappa, West by: Vacant sites of Ramaiah, Son of Sri Pillaiah and now owned by the 2nd defendant Sri T.Narayanappa, North by: Vacant site belonging to Sri Ganesh Pillai now purchased by II defendant Sri T.Narayanappa, South by: The residential house of the plaintiff.
3. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
A suit for bare injunction came to be filed by the plaintiff contending that plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession
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
