DAYANAND RAMAKRISHNA KOTKAR Vs. ELIAS MASCARENHAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is filed at the instance of the plaintiff in R.C.S.No.39/97.

(2.) THE parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said Civil Suit.

(3.) THERE is no dispute as regards the facts. The plaintiff was having a stall admeasuring about 20 sq. metres from the year 1992 or so. Likewise, there was another stall held by Digambar Bandekar. Both the stalls were held on lease from Pernem Municipal Council and were situated in the land of the said Council. Inbetween the stall of the plaintiff and that held by the said Digambar Bandekar there was an open space. In the year 1994, the plaintiff with the permission of the said Municipal Council dated 12-1-1994 extended his stall by another 30 sq. metres as can be seen from the said licence/permission Exh.PW1/C colly which is annexed with a plan. The defendant purchased the stall of Digambar Bandekar in the year 1995. This stall appears to have been of wooden material and the defendant obtained permission from the said Municipal Council and reconstructed the said stall. It appears from the evidence of D.W.2, the Municipal Engineer that the defendant was given a licence to substitute the wooden shed of the defendant into masonary stone walls and the defendant was required to do the reconstruction within the plinth area but the defendant extended the plinth area while reconstructing the said stall by about 2 sq. metres or so and also increased the height by another 30 to 40 cms.