Back
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL
K. M. Krishna Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The original plaintiff has preferred this appeal for challenging the judgment of the High Court in a second appeal by which the High Court has interfered and has set aside the decree passed by the first Appellate Court.
PLAINT
2. The appellant filed a suit for a perpetual injunction in respect of the immovable property more particularly described in the schedule to the plaint (for short, ‘the suit property’). According to the appellant, he and his brothers succeeded to the suit property after the demise of his father. He claimed that the suit property was allotted to his share under a family settlement dated 25th April 1993, executed by and between him and his brothers. The appellant claims to be in exclusive possession of the suit property. The suit is founded on the cause of action that on 18th June 1994, the respondents tried to interfere with his possession of the suit property. Therefore, a suit simpliciter for injunction was filed by him.
WRITTEN STATEMENT CUM COUNTER-CLAIM
3. The respondents-defendants filed a written statement cum counter-claim accepting that the suit property was originally owned by Sri. Muniswamappa, the late father
When there is a denial of title or a challenge raising a cloud, parties should file a suit for declaration of title, and adverse possession requires hostile possession denying the true owner's title.
The plaintiff's claim for possession, sought 29 years after the date of the registered sale deed, is barred by limitation and cannot be permitted.
The plaintiff has to prove his case on his own strength, and in this case, the appellant failed to establish his possession of the suit property, leading to the dismissal of the second appeal.
Adverse Possession – Facts constituting ingredients of adverse possession must be pleaded and proved by plaintiff – Plaintiff must plead and prove that he was claiming possession adverse to true owne....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for permanent injunction may not be legally sustainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title, especially when the plainti....
Revenue records do not confer title or prove possession against commissioner report and admissions showing physical division by road and fencing; injunction suit maintainable on possession without de....
Suit of the plaintiff for bare injunction is not maintainable and the First Appellate Court could not have decreed the suit of the plaintiff, when the defendants apart from denying the title and poss....
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
