Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Plaintiff’s Undisputed Title Over Property Negates Need for Declaratory Suit, Karnataka High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant verdict, the High Court of Karnataka, presided over by Justice H.P. Sandesh, has overturned the judgment of the First Appellate Court in the case involving property encroachment and reinstated the Trial Court’s decision. The case centered on the crucial legal principle of possession and title in property disputes, especially in the context of ancestral land and alleged encroachment.

The dispute involved a property in Yogimalali village, Thirthahalli taluk, where the appellant, H.P. Nagaraja, alleged encroachment by the respondents on his ancestral land. The key issue revolved around whether the appellant proved lawful ownership and possession of the disputed property and whether the respondents had acquired title over the encroached area through adverse possession.

Justice H.P. Sandesh thoroughly re-examined the evidence and testimonies. The court observed, “The very claim of the defendant that he is in possession of Sy.No.37 is against the material available on record.” Justice Sandesh criticized the First Appellate Court’s approach, noting that it failed to properly assess the oral and documentary evidence regarding possession prior to 1990. The court emphasized the importance of consistent and credible evidence in property disputes, especially in cases of ancestral land and alleged encroachment.

The judgment reaffirmed legal principles concerning property rights, possession, and the concept of adverse possession. The court relied on the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and precedents set by the Supreme Court of India regarding property disputes and the burden of proof in cases of encroachment and adverse possession.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the decision of the Trial Court. The court held that the appellant had proven lawful ownership and possession of the disputed property and that the respondents had not established a claim of adverse possession.

Date of Decision: February 2, 2024

H.P. Nagaraja Vs. Channappa Gowda (and others) 

 

Latest Legal News