JAYAMMA AND ORS. Vs. P. PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE present appeal is filed by the defendant. It was the case of the plaintiff before the trial court that he was the absolute owner of property bearing No. 60, old No. 49, situated between 7th Main and 8th Mam, K.N. Extension, Yeshwanthapur, Bengaluru, which was more fully described in the suit schedule. Late Chikkavenkataiah, the husband of the first defendant and the first defendant were said to be owners of house No. 68, old No. 47, situated between 7th and 8th main Road, Bengaluru which was about 100 meters away from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff was said to be carrying out certain civil works of the adjacent property and Chikkavenkataiah and the plaintiff were acquainted with each other. Since the house of Chikkavenkataiah was old and was in dilapidated condition, during February 1992, the first defendant and her husband are said to have approached the plaintiff and requested him to demolish the old house and put up new construction. This work of demolition and reconstruction was done as per the requirement of the first defendant and her husband and the construction was to be carried out within thirty days. The cost of demolition and construction was estimated at Rs. 23,000/ -. The husband of the first defendant had agreed to pay Rs. 10,000/ - initially and to pay Rs. 5,000/ - on or before 5.3.1992 and the balance of Rs. 8,000/ - on 5.4.1992. The first defendant and her husband were required to vacate the house for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to demolish and reconstruct. The first defendant and her husband did not have an alternative place of residence and therefore, they had requested the plaintiff to make available to them his house bearing No. 60, as aforesaid, which was the suit schedule property and which was almost adjacent to the first defendant's house. The plaintiff, therefore, had permitted the first defendant and her husband to occupy the suit property till the house of the first defendant is reconstructed and made habitable. In this regard, they are said to have entered into an agreement dated 6.2.1992 incorporating the above terms and conditions. The husband of the first defendant is said to have paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - as on the date of entering into an agreement and they had vacated the house and the plaintiff had duly commenced the work of demolition and also started to lay foundation from 9.2.1992. The husband of the first defendant, however, is said to have expired on 17.2.1992 and in view of this untoward incident, the first defendant had called upon the plaintiff to stop the work for a while in view of her husband's death and the work was stopped. The plaintiff thereafter, was approaching the first defendant and seeking to know as to when he could commence reconstruction. The first defendant is said to have postponed the work indefinitely. However, the plaintiff is said to have intimated the first defendant that he could commence work on 20.4.1992.

(3.) WHETHER plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 400/ - per month for 36 months amounting to Rs. 14,500/ - and also entitled for future mesne profits?