Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)
Sri. R. Muniswamy @ Papanna vs Sri.K.Balaraj on 7 October, 2020 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs Vasavi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors on 7 January, 2014

In this regard, it is just and necessary to quote the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied by the counsel for the defendant reported in AIR 2014 SC 937 in the matter between Union of India & others Vs. Vasavi Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. & Others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clearly held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 229 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Mallanagouda vs Basanagouda on 15 January, 2013

21. The above decision relied by the counsel for the defendant clearly applies to the case on hand. On the other hand, the counsel for the plaintiff during the course of his arguments has argued that if the defendant claims possession and title over the suit schedule property as against the title of the plaintiff, 24 O.S.No.8848/2006. he is duty bound to make a counter claim and if no counter claim is made, the Court cannot give an affirmative finding in favour of the defendant and in support of the said contentions, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka rendered on 12-02-2020 in RSA No1175/2005 in the matter between Mallanagouda Vs. Basanagouda. The said arguments canvassed by the counsel for the plaintiff cannot be accepted and the decision relied by him is also not applicable to the case on hand for the simple reason that in the said case, the issue No.3 was framed by the Trial Court casting burden of proving the same on the defendants to prove their ownership over the CB No.5 measuring 7 acres 7 guntas and answered the said issue in affirmative and in the second appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to observe that since the defendants have contended that the plaintiffs have encroached 25 guntas of land and claimed ownership over the same without claiming the relief of possession in respect of the said 25 guntas by maintaining a counter claim, there cannot be any affirmative findings in favour of the defendants. But, in the present suit, no issue casting the burden of proving the ownership by the defendant over the suit schedule property has been framed and the facts and circumstances of the present case are entirely different from the facts and circumstances of the said case and as such, the above 25 O.S.No.8848/2006. said decision relied by the counsel for the plaintiff is not applicable to the case on hand. Moreover, as per the law of precedents, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India being the law of land needs to be followed by this Court as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied by the counsel for the defendant squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - M M Shantanagoudar - Full Document
1