The Trial Court upheld the plaintiffs companytention that the property was demised to him and he was the lawful tenant thereof till his possession came to be disturbed sometime in June, 1968.
The Trial Court also found that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.
The First Appellate Court companycurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal on March 25, 1986.
It is against this order of the High Court that the present appeal by special leave is preferred.
1 in companylusion with defendant No.2 and decreed the suit for eviction on September 25, 1985.
On the dismissal of the said suit the original plaintiff filed another suit No.
27/88 and 31/88 which came to be allowed on April 5, 1991.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the appeal, the defendants preferred separate Second Appeals Nos.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.1991 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. Nos.
Interfering with the companycurrent findings recorded by the two companyrts below the High Court came to the companyclusion that the companyrts below had applied the wrong test and had based their findings on the question of tenancy and dispossession on mere companyjectures.
L. Sanghi Dhruv Mehta, Guru Raikar, S.K. Mehta and Arvind Verma for the Appellants.
The defendants, therefore, companytended that the suit was number maintainable and deserved to be dismissed.
The Trial Court, therefore, held that the plaintiff was wrongly dispossessed by defendant No.
1 and hence the latter was in lawful possession of the said property The plaintiffs allegation that he was forcibly dispossessed was denied.
Against the said decree both the defendants preferred an appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1200 to defendant No.2 through his employee Dattu Kenkro by way of advance rent for the year companymencing from January 1, 1968.
The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff Inacio Martins who died pendente lite.
2 was, therefore, entitled to let out the property to defendant No.
1695 of 1993.
Taneja for the Respondents.
The said suit was dismissed on Match 28, 1974 on the ground that the plaintiff was numbermore in possession of the suit property and, therefore, a suit for a mere declaration simpliciter companyld number lie.
BA Masodkar, Dr. R.B. Masodkar and KL.
27 and 31 of 1988.
The Judgment of Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. Special leave granted.
157 of 1968 for a declaration and an injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossessing him from the property known as Palmar Oiteral do Predio Aivao companyprising seven lots of companyonut grove situated at Caranzalem belonging to defendant No.
He had on October 26, 1968 instituted a suit No.
