This appeal is field by the appellant under Section 96

of CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by

the VIII Additional city civil and sessions Judge, Bengaluru

in O.S.No.5479/2013 dated 2.3.2019 for having dismissed

the suit.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

appellant and learned counsel for respondent.

3. The appellant was plaintiff and respondent was

defendant in the Trial Court. The rank of the parties before

the Trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that he has filed suit

against defendant for awarding damages of Rs.1 lakh. It is

the case of the plaintiff that he is owner of the property

bearing No.67, old No.29, at door No.B-44, P.V.R Road,

3

Bengaluru, herein referred as 'A' schedule property. But

the defendant by concocting unregistered 'Will' claiming the

property and on the basis of fabricated 'Will' the defendant

break opened the door of the room and attached room

which was attached to the 'A' schedule property illegally

occupied on 15.10.1997. Subsequently, plaintiff filed suit

for restoration of the possession in O.S.No.7528/1998 and

suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and a regular first

appeal filed by the defendant in RFA No.1429/2003 which

came to be dismissed. Even a contempt proceedings was

initiated which is also dismissed. The defendant made the

plaintiff to suffer mentally and financially due to illegal

proceedings. Therefore, the defendant has to pay Rs.1 lakh

as damage, hence prayed for allowing the appeal.

5. The defendant filed written statement by denying

the claim of the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff

was tenant in a portion of the property. The defendant is

the owner of the property acquired through 'Will' executed

4

through his brother and probate certificate obtained while

filing the P & S.C.No.58/1994. The HRC No.457/2005 case

the proceedings also filed against the plaintiff, HRRP

No.229/1999 also filed in the High Court and reserved the

liberty

for

taking

action

against

the

plaintiff.

In

O.S.No.7528/1998, the liberty was granted to vacate the

plaintiff in accordance with law. Therefore, he is not

entitled for any damages and also contended, the plaintiff

availed the legal services from the Government. Therefore,

he is not entitled for any cost of litigations and similar suits

were filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.9048/2005 and

O.S.No.4003/2005 which came to be dismissed. Hence

prayed for dismissing the suit.

6.

Based upon the rival pleadings, the Trial Court

framed the issues which are as under:

"1)

Whether the plaintiff proves defendant

has illegally occupied the room and kept

under lock?

5

(2)

Whether plaintiff proves due to the illegal

act of defendant, he has approached the

court of law and succeeded to obtain

decree in his favour?

(3)

Whether plaintiff proves he has suffered

loss more than Rs.1,00,000/-?

(4)

Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of

damages as sought?

(5)

What order or decree?"

7. In order to prove the contention, the plaintiff

himself marked as P.W.1 and got marked 14 documents

and the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and he also

got marked 19 documents. After hearing the arguments,

the Trial Court while passing the judgment, deleted the

issue No.1 as unnecessary and answered issue Nos.2 to 4 in

Negative against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Being

aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this court.

8. Learned counsel for appellant has contended that

the defendant illegally dispossessed the plaintiff and the

6

same was proved by him by filing the suit and resorted the

possession and the same was upheld by the High court.

Therefore, the Trial Court committed error in answering

issue No.2 in Negative and Issue no.1 has been deleted

without the knowledge and without giving opportunity,

which is not correct. The plaintiff suffered a lot, due to the

unnecessary litigation against the appellant. Therefore, he

has been harassed menta