KUNHANNA NAIKA Vs. NARAYANA BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is preferred by the defendant in O.S. No. 75/2008, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 29/2013 dated 21/12/2013, by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, (D.K.), by which the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 75/2008 by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, dated 4/3/2013 is confirmed.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the trial court.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, he acquired ownership over Sy. No. 175/1C, measuring 1 acre 40 cents, situated at Nidpalli Village, Puttur Taluk, under a registered partition deed dated 30/3/1961. The plaintiff constructed a residential house on 'A' schedule property, which is shown as plaint 'B' schedule property. The defendant was an employee of the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff permitted him to reside in the said house in the year 1990. Therefore, the defendant is only a licensee. The defendant, at the time of filing the suit, was not attending to the work of the plaintiff. Further, the defendant was trying to illegally construct a "hatti and kottige" near the 'B' schedule property. He had also stored construction materials in the second week of March 2008. This was opposed to by the plaintiff. Despite objection by the plaintiff, defendant continued to put up a permanent structure. Therefore, plaintiff terminated the licence and filed a suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs.