JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Courts below were correct in decreeing the suit only on the premise that defendant No.2-appellant could not prove his title.

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 purchased the suit property in the year 1991 from one T. Bayarappa. Apparently plaintiff-respondent No.2 was in permissive possession thereof. As despite request he refused to vacate the licensed premises, the suit was filed.

4. On the other hand, the defence of the appellant before us was that he had been in lawful possession of the property in his own right. Appellant, inter alia, contended that the original owner of the property, viz., Shri T. Bayrappa had entered into an agreement of sale with one Shri Krishnamurthy. A Power of Attorney was also executed in his favour. The said Krishnamurthy has assigned his rights under an agreement in favour of denfendant No.1, (late Shri G. Srinivas) and delivered possession of the property to him. Shri Srinivas raised constructions thereupon. Shri Krishnamurthy allegedly as an agent of T. Bayrappa assigned hi