Abhay Manohar Sapre JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the Plaintiff against the final judgment and order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad in Regular Second Appeal No. 213/2007(INJ.) whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent herein and set aside the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court.
3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, it is necessary to state few relevant facts.
4. The Appellant is the Plaintiff whereas the Respondent is the Defendant in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
5. The dispute involved in the appeal relates to a shop measuring 9 ft. 9 inch North and 5 ft. East West situated out of land bearing CTS 1590/A-4 in the City of Belgaum (as detailed in plaint) (hereinafter referred to as "suit shop").
6. One Vithal Dhopeshwarkar was the owner of the suit shop along with the land over which the suit shop is built and some adjoining land. He sold the land and the suit shop to the Appellant vide registered sale deed dated 20.09.1997 (Annexure P-6). The Respondent (Defendant) was in possession of the suit shop even prior to its purchase by the Appellant from Vithal Dhopeshwarkar.
7. On 08.06.1999, the Appellant filed a civil suit being O.S. No. 115/1999 against the Respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Belgaum claiming possession of the suit shop from the Respondent. The suit was founded on the allegations, inter alia, that the Appellant is the owner of the suit shop having purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 20.09.1997 from Vithal Dhopeshwarkar. It was alleged that the Respondent was in possession of the suit shop without any right, title and interest of any nature.
8. In other words, according to the Appellant, the Respondent, since inception, was in illegal possession of the suit shop. The Appellant, on purchase of the suit shop, therefore, requested the Respondent to vacate the suit shop but he failed to vacate and hence the Appellant became entitled to claim possession of the suit shop from the Respondent on the strength of his ownership over the suit shop. A relief of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month was also claimed.
9. The Respondent filed written statement. He denied the Appellant's title and claimed that he has been in possession of the suit shop since "time immemorial" and much prior to the Appellant's purchasing the suit shop. The Respondent also raised a plea that he has perfected his title by virtue of adverse possession over the suit shop against the predecessor-in-title of the Appellant and the Appellant.
10. The Trial Court framed the issues. Parties led evidence. By judgment/decree dated 03.11.2003 in O.S. No. 115 of 2003, the Trial Court decreed the Appellant's suit. The Trial Court held that the Appellant is the owner of the suit shop, that the Respondent failed to prove his adverse possession over the suit shop, that the Respondent has been in illegal possession of the suit shop and that the Appellant is entitled to claim eviction of the Respondent from the suit shop and also entitled to claim