1972 (5) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....training the defendant from unlawfully and forcibly entering upon the suit site, and disturbing the plaintiff's possession and also from constructing the house by unlawfully obtaining a licence from the Municipality. 2. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. The first appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. In second appeal the High Court reversed the decree of the court below and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs, primarily on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish satisfactorily his title to the suit property. 3. The suit property is a building site measuring 80 x 40 feet situated within the municipal limits of Birur. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the same from one B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upholding the title of the plaintiff they have primarily relied on the said deed executed by Abdul la Saheb in his favour. The defendant in his written statement had pleaded that D.W. 5 was the owner of the suit property and that he had purchased the same from him in 1953. The question whether the defendant had a valid title to the suit property or not has not been examined either by the trial court or by the first appellate court. The High Court has also not gone into that question. But the High Court has dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the sole ground that the plaintiff has not satisfactorily proved his title. 5. So far as the question of possession is concerned, as mentioned earlier, both the trial court and the first appellate ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al on record, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has satisfactorily established his title to the suit property. Hence he is not entitled to relief No. 1. Ordinarily under these circumstances we would have remanded the case for deciding the question of title afresh. But this litigation has gone on for a long time and the property in dispute was purchased for Rs. 100. Under these circumstances, it is in the interest of the parties to keep open the question of title to be agitated by the parties if they so desire in fresh proceeding and confirm the decree of the trial court in respect of relief No. 2 and set aside its decree in respect of relief No. 1. As we specifically keep open the question of title, it will not....