P H DAYANAND Vs. S VENUGOPAL NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Courts below were correct in decreeing the suit only on the premise that defendant No. 2-appellant could not prove his title.

(3.) The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 purchased the suit property in the year 1991 from one T. Bayarappa. Apparently plaintiff-respondent No. 2 was in permissive possession thereof. As despite request he refused to vacate the licensed premises, the suit was filed.