SHIVAPPA Vs. ADMINISTRATOR MAHADEV TEXTILE MILLS HUBLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn,), Hubli in R. A. No. 62/94 in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Munsiff, Hubli in O. S. No. 190/87.

(2.) THE plaintiff had filed a suit in O. S. No. 190/87 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property claiming that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property to the extent of 150 x 50 ft. in CTS No. 103 situated at karwar Road, Hubli arid running a firewood depot. Originally the property was in Sy. Nos. 107/1 and 107/2 belonging to one Desai family and since the plaintiff was obedient to them, they allotted the said property to the plaintiff and he is running firewood depot therein for more than 30-40 years since the time of his father. Alleging that the respondent-defendant is trying to take possession of the suit property unlawfully, he filed the suit for permanent injunction. According to the defendant, the suit property is vested with the Government by virtue of the Karnataka Co-operative Textile Mills (Acquisition and Transfer) Ordinance, 1986 and it has authorised the respondent-defendant as an Administrator to Mahadev Textile Mills to take possession of the suit property. After hearing the parties, the trial Court having raised as many as 5 issues, held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his lawful possession and is not entitled for possession and enjoyment and accordingly, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. As against it, an appeal was preferred before the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hubli in R. A. No. 62/94. The said Court also holding that the plaintiff is a trespasser and is in unlawful possession of the suit property dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the order of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, this second appeal is filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) AT the time of admission on 14-9-2000 this Court has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration :