SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Kar) 37

DILIP B.BHOSALE
Bangarappa – Appellant
Versus
Rudappa – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:C.M. Nagabhushana, Advocate. For the Respondents: (R2 (a) served).

Judgment :-

1. This second appeal under section 100 of the CPC is directed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below whereby a suit bearing O.S.No.236/94 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, stands allowed. The suit was instituted for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit properties and for injunction restraining the appellant-defendant, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, from interfering with their possession over the suit property.

2. The facts that are relevant for deciding this appeal are as under:

The plaintiffs are husband and wife. The defendant claims that he had purchased the suit property, under registered sale deed dated 18.01.1993 and since then he is in possession thereof as owner. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they were not in a position to look after and cultivate their agricultural land i.e., the suit property and hence they had requested the defendant to help them out for managing the same. After the defendant started looking after the suit property, he allegedly took the first plaintiff to the Tahsildar’s Office under the pretext that he needs to execute a power of






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top