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

....ntering 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 Banavarada Abdulla Saheb for a sum of Rs. 100/- on January....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lied 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 court have accepted the plaintiff's case that he was in p....