Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri N. Krishnamurthy, filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit property against the Corporation of City of Bengaluru and private respondents. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appellant filed RFA No.1006/2007 under Section 96 CPC. The respondents also filed RFA No.844/2007. The High Court considered the appeals together. The court found that the appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove his title and possession over the suit property. The trial court's judgment was upheld. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appeal against dismissal of suit - Section 96 CPC - Suit for declaration of title and injunction - Plaintiff failed to prove title and possession - Trial court dismissed suit - Appellate court affirmed - Held that burden of proof lies on plaintiff to establish title and possession (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant/plaintiff has proved his title and possession over the suit property to be entitled for declaration and injunction?
Final Decision
Both appeals dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- burden of proof
- title declaration
- possession
- adverse possession
- limitation
- Section 96 CPC
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (08) 7
R.F.A. NO.1006/2007 C/W R.F.A. NO.844/2007
Sri S. Channaraya Reddy (for appellant), Sri H.S. Dwarakanath, Sri Ajit Kalyan, Smt. Vimala V. (for respondents)
The Corporation of City of Bengaluru and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction
Remedy Sought
Declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit property
Filing Reason
Appellant claimed title and possession over suit property and sought to restrain respondents from interfering
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit on 15.02.2007 in O.S.No.1130/1998
Issues
Whether the appellant proved his title and possession over the suit property?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that he is the owner in possession of suit property and respondents have no right to interfere.
Respondents contended that appellant failed to prove title and possession.
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff must prove his title and possession to be entitled to declaration and injunction. Failure to discharge burden of proof results in dismissal of suit.
Procedural History
Suit O.S.No.1130/1998 filed before XXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, dismissed on 15.02.2007. Appellant filed RFA No.1006/2007 and respondents filed RFA No.844/2007 under Section 96 CPC. Both appeals heard together and dismissed on 23.08.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 96
