BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. Both the appeals being interconnected with each other and in respect of the same premises, they are heard together with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.

2. The First Appeal No.4758 of 2007 was filed by the appellant Pershotambhai Valjibhai Vania, challenging the separate judgment and decree dated 27.8.2007 passed by the Judge, City Civil Court No.9, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court”) in Civil Suit No.3408 of 2002 and the First Appeal No.4759 of 2007 was filed by the same appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.8.2007 passed by the same Court in Civil Suit No.3633 of 2002. During the pendency of the appeals, the original appellant having expired, his heirs were permitted to be brought on record. Similarly, the respondent No.1 Jabbarkhan Sulekhan in First Appeal No.4758 of 2007 having expired during the pendency of the appeal and no cause of action having survived against him, he was also permitted to be deleted from the causetitle of the First Appeal No.4758 of 2007.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of First Appeal No.4759 of 2007 are considered.

4. The respondent-Shankutalaben Shankerbhai Kosti (original plaintiff) had filed the Civil Suit No.3633 of 2002 against the appellant (original defendant) Pershotambhai Valjibhai Vania, seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for restraining him from creating any obstruction/encroachment on the footpath belonging to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, and abutting on the Northern side of the suit shop belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought mandatory injunction for removal of the miscellaneous articles, benches, etc., placed by the defendant in front of the shutter of the shop belonging to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, she was put in possession of the property in question on 18.9.2002 by the original owner Jabbarkhan Sulekhan by executing an agreement and power-ofattorney in her favour. Subsequently, the said suit shop being within the disturbed area, the plaintiff had purchased the same by way of sale deed executed by the said owner on 27.2.2003, after obtaining necessary permission from the Collector on 24.2.2003. As per the case of the plaintiff, the appellant (defendant) had made encroachment upon the footpath on the Northern side of the suit shop causing obstruction to the plaintiff, and therefore, the suit was filed.

5. The appellant had also filed another suit being No.3408 of 2002 against the said Jabbarkhan Sulekhan, and Shankerbhai Ramchandrabhai, husband of Shakuntalaben, seeking permanent injunction against the defendants in the said suit, restraining them from putting up any window, grill or jaliya on the wall of the said shop. It was alleged in the said suit that the appellant was carrying on the business on the land bearing Plot No.62 belonging to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and had constructed temporary shed for his miscellaneous business. According to him, the defendants in the said suit were trying to open the window/jaliya on the wall falling on the Northern side of the shop, and therefore, the said suit was filed.

6. The trial Court by separate judgments dated 27.8.2007, decreed the Civil Suit No.3633 of 2002 and dismissed the Civil Suit No.3408 of 2002 with cost of Rs.10,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the present appeals have been filed.

7. Having regard to the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court and to the record of the case, the only issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the appellant Pershotambhai Valjibhai Vania had any legal right to carry on business on the footpath belonging to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, causing obstruction to the respondent – owner of the suit shop in carrying on his business in the suit shop. It appears that the appellant was claiming his right on the strength of his long possession on the land bearing Final Plot No.62 belongi