RAMESH HANAMAT BORWANKAR Vs. BHALACHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the plaintiff and respondent was the defendant in the trial Court. The rank of the parties are referred to as in the Trial Court.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit in O. S. No. 8 of 1990 for possession of plot No. 19 in Sy. No. 39/2b situated within the limits of Kangrali khurd in Belgaum District, which is the suit schedule property, for mesne profits etc. The case pleaded is that plaintiff purchased Plot Nos. 17, 19 and 20 while the defendant purchased Plot No. 18 which is on the western side of Plot No. 19. It is stated that plaintiff was employed outside Belgaum and that the defendant encroached upon and put up construction on the suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiff. In those circumstances the plaintiff filed the suit for possession. The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement. Except denying the alleged encroachment upon Plot No. 19, all the facts pleaded by the plaintiff have been admitted. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial court framed issues and parties adduced evidence and produced documents in support of their case. Upon consideration of the same, the Trial court dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 6-8-1994. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff in R. A. No. 61 of 1994 against the said judgment and decree, which was allowed by the First Appellate Court by its judgment dated 24-8-1999 setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court and remanding the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made therein. Aggrieved by the same the defendant has filed this second appeal.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and perusing the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, this Court prima facie found that both the Courts below have not considered the case in a proper perspective resulting in miscarriage of justice.