OMPARKASH Vs. OMPARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT-plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the shop, in dispute. He further prayed that the appellant-defendant be directed to pay mesne profits for use and occupation of the said shop. During pendency of suit, possession of the shop, in dispute, was delivered, under orders of the Court, to respondent on 16.3.1999. Suit was decreed to the extent granting mesne profits @ Rs.700/- per month w.e.f. February, 1996 to 16.3.1999. Appellant failed in appeal.

(2.) BEFORE the Courts below and also before this Court, it was contention of the appellant that, in fact, possession was delivered by the appellant, of his own, to the respondent on 27.2.1996 and not on 16.3.1999, as has been determined by both the Courts below. By taking note of the evidence on record, Courts below have rightly held that the possession, in fact, was got delivered by the bailiff to the respondent on RSA No.4528 of 2005 -2- 16.3.1999. To say so, reliance has been placed upon report made by the bailiff Ex.P12 and Ex.P13. This Court feels that in view of findings given by the appellate Court in paragraph Nos.12 to 16, no case is made out for interference in pure findings of fact as counsel has failed to raise any substantial question of law at the time of arguments. Dismissed.