1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed on 25.9.2001 by the Joint District Judge, Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal No.21/1995 filed against the judgment and decree passed on 26.10.1994 in Regular Civil Suit No.402/1990 by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, thereby dismissing the appeal and confirming the decree passed by the trial Court.

2. The appellant is the grand daughter in law of the original plaintiff to whom the suit property, which is a shop situated in a building popularly known as Mathuradas building, Amravati, was bequeathed by the original plaintiff. Deceased respondent nos.1 and 2 were original defendant nos.1 and 2 and remaining respondents were substituted as defendant nos. 3(1) to 3(4) after the original defendant no.3. Nandalal Pyarelal Shrivas died during the pendency of the suit, they being legal representatives in the capacity as widow and children of said Nandalal respectively. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereto are being referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants.

3. It was the case of the original plaintiff Gangabai Gilda that she became owner of the joint half share in the building popularly known as Mathuradas building situated on Nazul plot bearing Nos.21/50, 21/51 and 21/52 of sheet No.56-A in Ward No.26(new) bearing Municipal Corporation House No.271 and 272 by virtue of an auction sale dated 2.3.1960 held in execution of a decree passed in her favour to the extent of half share in the said building in a mortgage suit. There was a challenge made to the said sale by the defendants in the mortgage suit and litigation went up to Supreme Court. Auction sale was confirmed by the Supreme Court by the Judgment and decree passed on 9.4.1974. It was averred that plaintiff was already put in possession of the suit property by the Court on 25.11.1960 and this sale became absolute after it was confirmed on 9.4.1974. However, the joint half share in the said building came to be defined and separated later on when there was a compromise decree passed by Additional District Judge, Amravati on 21.8.1987 in Regular Civil Appeal No.234/1980. The portion that came to be allotted to the plaintiff in the compromise decree encompassed within it the shop in possession of the defendants and this property, hereafter called as “suit property”, is the subject matter of the present dispute between the parties.

4. The plaintiff submitted that the suit property was purchased by her in auction sale, which was then occupied by one Nandalal Rathi and thereafter at the time of confirmation of the sale, it came to be occupied by Tekchand Sawaldas and after some years one Pyarelal Shrivas, the husband of original defendant no.1 Smt. Janakibai and father of original defendant nos.2 and 3 namely Smt. Sharda and Nandalal, entered into possession of the suit property without consent of the plaintiff. It was further submitted that since Pyarelal was trespasser having been in occupation of the suit property without her consent, the plaintiff orally requested Nandalal, who after death of his father Pyarelal, started occupying the property, to vacate the same.

5. The plaintiff also submitted that she had intimated the original defendant no.3 Nandalal about confirmation of the compromise decree dated 21.8.1987 by the High Court in Second Appeal No.57/1989 by virtue of which she had become sole owner of the suit property. She further submitted that she had also intimated original defendant no.3 that she had acquired right to recover damages for use and occupation of the suit property w.e.f. 1.7.1987. She further submitted that she learnt that defendant no.3 had put a slab on the suit property and extended the area of the suit property by constructing a new wall without her consent. She protested against the same by lodging a police complaint with Police Station, City Kotwali, Amravati and also with Municipal Corporation, Amravati. She further submitted that possession of original