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

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