NANJAPPA Vs. NANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the defendant in o. S. No. 18 of 1995 though arises out of a very simple matter, a suit for recovery of possession and both the Courts below have concurrently held against the defendant in decreeing the plaintiffs suit for recovery of possession, is a typical example of how Courts can go wrong if evidence on record is either not taken into consideration or if the pleadings are not considered in the proper perspective and relevant issues are not framed in the context of the pleadings. This case serves as an ideal example of the courts below not bestowing their attention to the controversy in the suit. The dispute which arises between the parties, which is required to be examined is a typical example of ignoring relevant material on record, a typical example of over-looking admissions made by the plaintiff in the course of his deposition and arrive at an inference which was impossible to arrive at, vitiating the judgment not only of the trial Court but the untenable affirming judgment of the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) IT is because of such reasons this Court had admitted the second appeal for examination, notwithstanding the Courts below having given a concurrent finding that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of possession from the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property - a portion of the house property measuring 9 ft. North to South and 12 ft east to West forming part of Municipal No. 1887/1827 in Chavadi Street of Nanjangud Town.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff was that the house property measuring 231/4 ft. East to West and 9 ft. North to South located at Chavadi Street of nanjangud Town was a house property in the ownership of the plaintiff; that a portion of this house property viz. , measuring 12 ft East to West and 9 ft. North to South had been in the permissive possession of the defendant, who is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff having married his younger sister; that the defendant had been given the house for his accommodation when he was in need of the same; that the defendant and himself constructed two houses in the town, but nevertheless was not vacating and handing over possession of the house in their occupation and therefore, it became necessary to file the suit for recovery of possession from the defendant. The defendant contested the suit and the very simple defence put forward was that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property, which was in occupation of the defendant. The sole defendant pleaded that it was a property belonging to his wife having been given to her by her mother, and contended that the dispute is only because of certain ill-feelings between the plaintiff and the defendant, the suit had been filed, without any right or cause; that the suit was not tenable and plaintiff was not entitled to the property; that the defendant was residing in the suit premises with his wife from a very long time; that the plaintiff had absolutely no right over the suit schedule property; that he has five other brothers, who all had agreed not to disturb the possession of the defendant and his wife and therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs etc.