Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J
TAJ PARVEEN – Appellant
Versus
EZAZULLA SHARIFF – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual context of the lawsuit parties and their claims. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. observations on the maintainability of multiple lawsuits. (Para 3 , 28 , 31 , 36 , 39) |
| 3. arguments about the plaintiffs' claim of title and possession. (Para 10 , 12 , 19 , 20 , 22) |
| 4. decisional principles regarding declaration of title and injunction. (Para 60 , 72 , 75 , 88) |
| 5. conclusion and directions regarding the title and possession. (Para 89 , 93) |
CAV JUDGMENT
The Second Appeal arising from the divergent findings was admitted to answer the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in decreeing plaintiffs’ suit when the plaintiffs have failed to substantiate their title with acceptable ocular and documentary evidence?
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs was maintainable, when the plaintiffs were not granted liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action in O.S.No.235/2008 and O.S.No.191/2008?
3. Was not the suit of the plaintiff hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC?
2. During the course of hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants-defendants also urged that in view of the bar underproviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief
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
