karnataka-high-court – Page 2

Once the plaintiff proves his possession and enjoyment of the suit property and when the defendant has chosen to contest the suit, the defendant’s interference could be inferred and the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction. Karnataka High Court.

Once the plaintiff proves his possession and enjoyment of the suit property and when the defendant has chosen to contest the suit, the defendant’s interference could be inferred and the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below: https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/VYfhK7IXoR75PodnZMXWmKhSY

Karnataka Stamp Act. When a document required to be stamped for a lesser amount before the amendment, is produced before the Court, after the amendment, the Court cannot impound and levy higher/revised stamp duty. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Stamp Act. When a document required to be stamped for a lesser amount before the amendment, is produced before the Court, after the amendment, the Court cannot impound and levy higher/revised stamp duty. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below: https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/pyZrihyJXKJ4OtKSxiPQb5WFk

Suit for partition dismissed for default does not bar a subsequent suit for partition. Karnataka High Court.

Suit for partition dismissed for default does not bar a subsequent suit for partition. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below: https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/0F6Kl8Jdf5JsttcELBYG4DE5R

Tenant can question katha which has been made out in the name of the subsequent purchaser of the tenanted property if the entry is not in consonance with the sale deed. Karnataka High Court.

Tenant can question katha which has been made out in the name of the subsequent purchaser of the tenanted property if the entry is not in consonance with the sale deed. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/rkevDaUP5qiXt8obD7bNhevqR

Land Acquisition Act. A landowner can maintain second application under Section 28A of the Act seeking redetermination of market value of his land in the event of further enhancement by the appellate court in respect of other lands. Karnataka High Court.

Land Acquisition Act. A landowner can maintain second application under Section 28A of the Act seeking redetermination of market value of his land in the event of further enhancement by the appellate court in respect of other lands. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/fTzDICdy2CgwyRkxXzydAu7Hh

Children born to second/void marriage are entitled to equal share in the self-acquired property of their father along with the children from the first marriage. Karnataka High Court.

Children born to second/void marriage are entitled to equal share in the self-acquired property of their father along with the children from the first marriage. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/knKHtUzt46DcBx4ofYongDu0b

Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act. Power conferred on Adhyaksha to stay the execution of any order or resolution of Taluk Panchayat is not appellate in nature to decide the dispute itself. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act. Power conferred on Adhyaksha to stay the execution of any order or resolution of Taluk Panchayat is not appellate in nature to decide the dispute itself. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/JMf7MU2PLgSOgADIZ0y0NwCaZ

Children of predeceased brother are also entitled to succeed to the property of the prepositus under the Mysore Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933. Karnataka High Court.

Children of predeceased brother are also entitled to succeed to the property of the prepositus under the Mysore Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Jqs83VRQOMRdEvv5p29UoMiO0

Limitation Act. When plaintiff’s title is not in dispute and the plea of adverse possession fails, suit for possession based on title cannot be said to be barred by time under Section 65. Karnataka High Court.

Limitation Act. When plaintiff’s title is not in dispute and the plea of adverse possession fails, suit for possession based on title cannot be said to be barred by time under Section 65. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/TGwG0RcnU5x3lkVJdJlEqIl5g

‘’Power of review is a creature of Statute’’. Deputy Commissioner has no power to review the order under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Karnataka High Court.

‘’Power of review is a creature of Statute’’. Deputy Commissioner has no power to review the order under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ZTwoZ2y19jfd8MwGY1OLcIbh6