By judgment decree dated 11.12.2006, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment decree of the Trial Court.
East West situated out of land bearing CTS 1590/A 4 in the City of Belgaum as detailed in plaint hereinafter referred to as suit shop .
In other words, according to the appellant, the respondent, since inception, was in illegal possession of the suit shop.
Heard Mr. R.S. Hegde, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Charuditta Mahindrakar, learned companynsel for the respondent.
He sold the land and the suit shop to the appellant vide registered sale deed dated 20.09.1997 Annexure P 6 .
The High Court, by impugned judgment, allowed the Second Appeal and while setting aside of the judgments and decrees of two Courts below dismissed the appellants suit.
It was alleged that the respondent was in possession of the suit shop without any right, title and interest of any nature.
The respondent defendant was in possession of the suit shop even prior to its purchase by the appellant from Vithal Dhopeshwarkar.
9 inch North and 5 ft.
The respondent filed written statement.
Felt aggrieved, the plaintiff appellant herein has filed the present appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, it is necessary to state few relevant facts.
213/2007 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code .
One Vithal Dhopeshwarkar was the owner of the suit shop along with the land over which the suit shop is built and some adjoining land.
A relief of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2500/ per month was also claimed.
The appellant, on purchase of the suit shop, therefore, requested the respondent to vacate the suit shop but he failed to vacate and hence the appellant became entitled to claim possession of the suit shop from the respondent on the strength of his ownership over the suit shop.
He denied the appellants title and claimed that he has been in possession of the suit shop since time immemorial and much prior to the appellants purchasing the suit shop.
The respondent, felt aggrieved, filed first appeal before the Ist Additional District Judge, Belgaum being Regular Appeal No.58/2003.
Parties led evidence.
The Trial Court accordingly passed decree for possession and mesne profits against the respondent.
The respondent also raised a plea that he has perfected his title by virtue of adverse possession over the suit shop against the predecessor in title of the appellant and the appellant.
The Trial Court framed the issues.
The suit was founded on the allegations, inter alia, that the appellant is the owner of the suit shop having purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 20.09.1997 from Vithal Dhopeshwarkar.
The Trial Court held that the appellant is the owner of the suit shop, that the respondent failed to prove his adverse possession over the suit shop, that the respondent has been in illegal possession of the suit shop and that the appellant is entitled to claim eviction of the respondent from the suit shop and also entitled to claim mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2000/ p.m. for a period of three years and the companyt of Rs.5000/ .
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
On 08.06.1999, the appellant filed a civil suit being O.S. No.115/1999 against the respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr Division, Belgaum claiming possession of the suit shop from the respondent.
By judgment decree dated 03.11.2003 in S. No.115 of 2003, the Trial Court decreed the appellants suit.
whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and set aside the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2017.11.20 170344 IST Reason Court.
The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondent is the defendant in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
The dispute involved in the appeal relates to a shop measuring 9 ft.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are companystrained to allow the appeal and while setting aside of the impugned judgment of the High Court restore that of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, which had rightly decreed the appellants suit against the respondent in relation to the suit shop.
The respondent, felt aggrieved, filed Second Appeal in the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench being S.A. No.
