Appellant/plaintiff feeling aggrieved by judgment and

decree of the First Appellate Court on the file of Prl. Civil Judge

(Sr.Dn) & JMFC, Hospet in R.A.No.2/2009, dated 15.4.2009,

preferred this appeal.

2.

Parties to appeal are referred with their ranks as

assigned before Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3.

The factual matrix leading to the case of plaintiff

can be stated in nutshell to the effect that plaintiff is licence

holder of CL-2 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Bellary vide CL-

2/HPT/16/2007-08, which is valid upto 30.6.2008 after paying

prescribed fee to Government of Karnataka. Plaintiff started the

liquor

shop

bearing

door

No.1304,

Ward

No.9,

Ananthashyanagudi, Hospet under the name and style of

Vishwas Wines. Defendants claim to be the office bearer of

different organization tired to interfere with the lawful activity

of plaintiff and his vendors Vasu and Basavarj, further

attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property.

- 4 -

Plaintiff filed complaint to the jurisdictional police on 2.8.2007.

However, police informed the plaintiff that matter is of civil

nature and to approach Civil Court to protect his possession.

The defendants continued to cause obstruction to plaintiff's

business, plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for

the relief claimed in suit.

4.

In response to suit summons, defendants have

appeared through their counsel and defendant No.9 filed

written statement contending that shop of the plaintiff is

located in the place which is near to school, temple and place

i.e. in the heart of the locality and persons residing in the area

are belonged to schedule caste and schedule tribes. The school

going

children,

women,

employees,

who

attend

the

Government office will stand near the wine shop because of the

buses and autos will also stop at the said place. The shop of the

plaintiff is causing nuisance and annoyance to public at large

and

affecting

the

public

morality

and

tranquility.

The

defendants have given necessary application to concerned

authority and made several representations. The excise

inspector came to the spot on 18.7.2007 and closed the wine

shop and reported the same to Deputy Commissioner of Excise,

Bellary on 21.8.2007. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise,

- 5 -

Bellary passed an order directing the plaintiff to apply for

shifting the shop in an un-objectionable place in Hospet city.

The objections moved through concerned authority for locating

the plaintiff's shop cannot be termed as interference in

possession of suit property by plaintiff. Therefore, prayed for

dismissal of the suit.

5.

Counsel for defendants Nos.1 to 8 filed memo

adopting the same written statement filed by defendant No.9.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has

framed the issues.

6.

Plaintiff to prove his case relied on the evidence of

PWs.1 to 3 and documents as per EXs.P.1 to 5. Defendants

relied on evidence of DWs.1 to 3 and documents Exs.D.1 to 14.

7.

The Trial Court, after appreciation of evidence on

record has decreed suit and defendants were permanently

restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the

plaintiff over suit property.

8.

Defendants have challenged the said judgment and

decree of the trial Court before the First Appellate Court on the

file of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & JMFC, Hospet in R.A.No.2/2009.

- 6 -

The First Appellate Court after re-appreciation of evidence has

allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of

the trial Court. Consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

9.

The plaintiff has challenged divergent finding

recorded by the First Appellate Court contending that the First

Appellate Court has committed serious error in disturbing the

finding of trial Court particularly when possession of plaintiff

over the suit property is admitted by defendants and carrying

his legal business under valid licence from concerned authority,

which would end on 30.6.2008. The trial Court on the issue of

interfer