V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. - (1.)THIS second appeal is filed by the Plaintiff challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court namely Small Causes Judge, Mysore, dated 12.8.1988 in R.A. No. 42 of 1987 in reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1985 passed by the Court of II Munsiff, Mysore in O.S. No. 592 of 1983 urging that the substantial question of law as formulated by this Court at the time of admission of this appeal arise for consideration and exercise of its power in this Appeal under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.)FOR the sake of convenience, parties are referred as per their ranking in the original suit proceedings.
The brief facts of the case necessary for considering the rival contentions of the parties are stated as hereunder: The Plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of declaration that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of Shop No. 70, Devaraja Market, Mysore, which is subject to leasehold rights of the Plaintiff; for a declaration that the subsequent lease, if any in favour of the 2nd Defendant by the 1st Defendant is illegal and not binding on the Plaintiff's occupancy right and also for a direction to the Defendant to deliver back the suit schedule property to the Plaintiff as a lessee of Shop No. 70 with costs. The claim of the Plaintiff was seriously contested by the Defendants inter -alia, contending that the suit is not maintainable; that the schedule property was not leased in favour of the Plaintiff; on the other hand, it was leased to the 2nd Defendant along with Shop Nos. 71, 72, 73, 73/A and 73/B and that the 2nd Defendant has put up rolling shutters to shop No. 70/1 after obtaining licence etc. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record has passed the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1985 decreeing the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the 2nd Defendant filed R.A. No. 42 of 1987 on the file of the Small Causes Judge, Mysore. The first appellate Court in exercise of its jurisdiction and power has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiff/appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.)THIS Court at the time of admission of this appeal on 25.11.1988 has framed the following substantial questions of law for its consideration: 1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in law in denying the appellant an injunction that would have enabled the appellant to make use of the passage in front of his shop -premises? 2) The suit property being a passage affording access to the appellant's shop premises, was it therefore, proper to the landlord of the shop premises to designate the passage as a separate unit and to dispose off the same in favour of the second Defendant? 3) Is the view of the lower appellate Court that the Plaintiff's suit was barred by time tenable in law?