AVINASH MARUTI PAWAR Vs. SHIVAJI BALARAM HAIBATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT of an original suit bearing O.S.No.115/1999, which was pending on the file of the Court of I Addl. Senior Civi l Judge, Belgaum is before this Court by f i ling an appeal under Section 100 of CPC, challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.115/1999 and aff irmed in R.A.No.58/2003 which was pending on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Belgaum. Parties wil l be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per their ranking given in the trial Court.

(2.) THE plaintiff claims to be the owner of schedule property having purchased the entire bui lding inclusive of this suit schedule property from Sri. Vithal Dhopeshwarkar, who was the original owner. Plaintiff is stated to have purchased the bui lding inclusive of the schedule property through two separate registered sale deeds dated 24.09.1977 and 20.09.1997.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, defendant is a rank trespasser. Earlier one Sitaram Shinde was stated to be doing business in shoes in the schedule shop under Vithal Dhopeshwarkar and later on the defendant il legally occupied the premises when Sitaram Shinde vacated the premises. Defendant is stated to have entered into the premises when widening of the main road was taken up by the Municipal Corporation of Belgaum. According to the plaintiff, the property in question can earn a sum of Rs.2,500/ - per month as rent. Therefore, claim is made to an extent of Rs.90,000/ - for mesne prof its and possession of schedule property. Defendant chose to fi le a written statement denying al l material averments. According to him, plaintiff himself is a trespasser and has no right to fi le suit. According to the defendant, he has been in possession of the suit schedule property from time immemorial and that he has acquired title by way of adverse possession against the present plaintiff. According to him, the suit is not maintainable as several litigations are going on in the Court of Civi l Judge (Jr.Dn. ) at Belgaum regarding possession of the property. On the basis of the above pleadings, fol lowing issues came to be framed.