JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr D. Vernekar for the Appellant and Ms Gina Maria Almeida for the Respondent (under the Legal Aid Scheme).

2. This Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 29.03.2011 and 01.09.2010 made by the first appellate Court and the Trial Court, respectively, declining the relief of permanent injunction to the Appellant–plaintiff in respect of the suit shop.

3. The Appellant is the original plaintiff, and the Respondent is the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.145/07/E, in which the Appellant applied for a permanent injunction to restrain the Respondent from interfering with his possession and occupation of shop no.2 in Estefania Building, Margao, and for a mandatory injunction requiring the Respondent to execute a Sale Deed along with the owners of the building in favour of the Appellant, in terms of the agreement reached between the parties.

4. The Respondent denied the Appellant's case and urged the suit's dismissal. The Respondent also raised a counterclaim seeking eviction of the Appellant from the suit shop and for payment of a licence fee at the rate of Rs.25,000/-per month from November 2006 till the possession of the suit shop is handed over to the Respondent.

5. The Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 01.09.2010, dismissed the suit and the counterclaim. The Appellant's Regular Civil Appeal No.552/2010 was dismissed by the first appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 29.03.2011. Hence, the present Second Appeal.

6. This Second Appeal was admitted on 23.08.2011 on the following substantial questions of law:

Whether the Court below could have refused relief of permanent injunction in favour of the Appellant after recording the finding that the Respondent has failed to prove that it was a leave and licence agreement and that the Appellant was put in possession pursuant to the agreement dated 04.11.2006 and after dismissing the counterclaim of the Respondent to recover possession?

7. Mr Vernekar, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits that the trial Court disbelieved the Respondent's case about the Appellant being a mere licensee. Consequently, after the trial Court dismissed the Respondent's claim for recovery of possession, the trial Court and the first appellate Court could never have refused the relief of permanent injunction to protect the Appellant's possession in respect of the suit shop. He submits that the two Courts should have granted such relief as a matter of course.

8. Mr Vernekar submitted that the Respondent, vide letter dated 04.11.2006, offered to sell the suit shop to the Appellant for a total consideration of Rs.14,00,000/-. This offer was duly accepted by the Appellant, resulting in an Agreement for the Sale/Purchase of the suit shop for total consideration of Rs.14,00,000/-. He submitted that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-was paid at that time, pursuant to which the Respondent placed the Appellant in possession of the suit shop. He submitted that by written notice, the Appellant offered to pay the balance amount to the Respondent against the execution of the Sale Deed involving inter alia the owner of the building. However, the Respondent neither accepted the balance amount nor executed any Sale Deed favouring the Appellant. Instead, the Respondent began interfering with the Appellant's possession. Mr Vernekar submits that in such circumstances permanent injunction should have been granted as a matter of course.

9. To the Court's query whether the Appellant would be willing to deposit the balance consideration amount together with interest, Mr Vernekar, on instructions, stated that the Appellant is now not in a financial position to pay the amount.

10. Ms Gina Almeida, the learned Counsel for the Respondent (appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme), submitted that the substantial question of law as framed does not arise and, in any case, should be answered against the Appellant. She pointed out that the Appellant, by paying Rs.1,50,000/-and refusing to pay the b