E. CHANDRASHEKHAR Vs. KANNAPPA MUDALIYAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S. No. 159/2001, on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Ballari, has come up in this second appeal impugning the divergent finding rendered by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Ballari, wherein the regular appeal in R.A. No. 10/2007, filed by defendants in the original suit is allowed and the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff is set aside.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this second appeal are that the appellant herein and the plaintiff in the original suit was tenant of shop bearing No. 59/2 situated in Ganesh Temple Street, Ward No. 5, Brucepet, Ballari, measuring east -west 10' and north -south 30'. Admittedly the said property was belonging to one Kannappa Mudaliar, who let out the same in favour of plaintiff's father Sreeramulu, in the year 1965 on monthly rental basis. The plaintiff's father Sreeramulu died in the year 1983. Thereafter the plaintiff in the original suit continued to do the business of oil, in the said shop up to 2000. In the year 2000, it is seen that the possession of the suit schedule property was taken by defendants 1 and 2 viz., B. Kannappa Mudaliar and his son V. Ravikumar. Thereafter the suit in O.S. No. 159/2001 is filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from giving vacant possession of the building to any third party and also for mandatory injunction i.e., direction to defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of suit schedule property and for other reliefs.

(3.) IT is seen that during the pendency of the proceedings the said person Karibasayya who was inducted into the tenanted property of plaintiff, vacated the premises and handed over possession to the plaintiff by receiving certain amount. In this background, it is seen that subsequently the plaintiff has also amended the plaint by modifying the earlier prayer for mandatory injunction and instead sought for the relief of restoration of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendants. However he did not take any steps to implead Karibasayya. Thereafter the matter went into trial.