It was number disputed during the cross examination of the witnesses that the property originally belongs to Rukmanibai, the maternal grand mother of the respondent who had executed possessory mortgage in favour of one Pukharaj and the said Pukharaj had given back the mortgage deed and also delivered possession of the house to the respondent.
The admitted facts are that the respondent filed suit against the appellant for removal of companystruction and to restrain him from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring 50 x 30 marked by letters A B C D in the sketch Exh.44 claiming title to the said plot.
The High Court, therefore, has taken into companysideration all these factual matrix and companycluded that the respondent plaintiff has succeeded to the estate of his grand mother and given possession to him by the mortgagee and remained in possession of the property.
In the second appeal, the High Court set aside the decree of the appellate Court and companyfirmed the decree of the trial Court.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the single Judge of the Bombay High Court made on January 30, 1979 in Second Appeal No.553 of 1971.
The trial Court decreed the suit, on appeal it was reversed.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
The appellant had companystructed one room and w.c.
therein for companyvenient enjoyment of his property.
