C P MAHADEVA SETTY Vs. NINGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Order 43, Rule l(u) of Code of Civil Procedure from the judgment and order of remand dated 15-2-1995 passed by Sri H.R. Sudheer, learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Nanjangud in the district of Mysore.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for declaration of right, title and possession with respect to the suit property as well as for recovery of mesne profits from July 1983 till the date of delivery of vacant possession. The plaintiff's case as per the plaint allegations has been that plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit property, having purchased the said property under the registered sale deed dated 11-1-1978 and thereafter he is in enjoyment of the property as owner thereof. Plaintiff's case is that plaintiff was in need of money. So under an agreement dated 10-6-1981, the plaintiff delivered the vacant possession of the suit property to the defendant and raised a loan of Rs. 1,100/-. The plaintiffs case under the agreement that it was agreed that within a period of two years the plaintiff will repay the amount and property will be delivered back by the defendant to the plaintiff. It was also agreed that until the payment of amount by the plaintiff, defendant is to enjoy the property and as soon as the amount is paid back, the property will be restored back by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further alleged that the plaintiff had paid the loan amount which she had taken from the defendant and the defendant returned the agreement after recovery with assurance to deliver the possession within a week. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant did not redeliver the possession of the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs case is that the defendant is not entitled to retain the possession of the property and does not have any right, title and interest over the property. The plaintiff's further case is that the defendant has been liable to pay the mesne profits from July 1983 till the actual date of delivery of vacant possession. With these allegations the plaintiff claimed the following relief's:

(3.) The Trial Court after having tried the case recorded its finding to the effect that the plaintiff was not entitled to the grant of reliefs claimed or sought in the suit and dismissed the same.