Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years

Animus Must Be Clearly Demonstrated: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Adverse Possession and Injunction Claims

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court affirms lower courts' rulings, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence to prove adverse possession and lawful possession for injunction.

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 1035 of 2018) involving a dispute over adverse possession and a claim for permanent injunction. The judgment, delivered by Justice H.P. Sandesh, upheld the decisions of the trial court and the first appellate court, emphasizing the necessity for clear and convincing evidence to substantiate claims of adverse possession and lawful possession for injunction.

The appellant, Sheenappa Gowda, claimed that he had perfected his title to the disputed property by way of adverse possession and sought a declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent, Radhakrishna N. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed his claims due to insufficient evidence. The appellant then filed a second appeal, restricting his claim to a permanent injunction.

The High Court reaffirmed the lower courts' findings that the appellant failed to establish the necessary animus for adverse possession. "Animus, or the intention to possess, must be clearly demonstrated and continuous," the court noted. Both oral and documentary evidence presented were deemed insufficient to prove the appellant’s claim. Justice Sandesh observed, "The factual matrix indicates a lack of continuous and hostile possession, which is essential for a claim of adverse possession."

In addressing the claim for permanent injunction, the court highlighted the requirement for proving lawful possession. The appellant's reliance on the admissions by the defendant’s witnesses was found to be inadequate without corroborative evidence. The court stated, "Lawful possession as on the date of filing the suit must be demonstrated with substantial evidence, which is conspicuously absent in this case."

The High Court declined to frame substantial questions of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Justice Sandesh emphasized that substantial questions of law arise only in the presence of significant errors in law or procedural misapplications. "The concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts do not warrant interference under Section 100 CPC," he remarked.

Justice H.P. Sandesh stated, "In the absence of clear and convincing evidence, both oral and documentary, to substantiate the claims of adverse possession and lawful possession, the appeal cannot be admitted. The lower courts have rightly dismissed the claims, and this court sees no reason to deviate from their findings."

The Karnataka High Court's dismissal of the appeal underscores the judiciary's insistence on robust evidence to support claims of adverse possession and lawful possession in injunction cases. By upholding the lower courts' decisions, the judgment reinforces the principle that substantial questions of law must be clearly present for an appellate court to intervene. This decision serves as a crucial precedent for future cases involving similar claims.

 

Date of Decision: 1st July 2024

Sheenappa Gowda v. Radhakrishna N.

 

Similar News