T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. - (1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff who was represented through her Attorney filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff of the suit room or any part thereof or getting an electric meter fitted into the suit room either by themselves, their agents, servants or successors or persons claiming through them in any manner whatsoever. The plaintiff also prayed for issuance of a direction by way of mandatory injunction directing to remove or cause to remove the electricity meter installed by the defendants in the suit room.
(2.) The defendants, particularly defendants No. 1 and 3 resisted the suit. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, both documentary and oral, the Court below dismissed the suit by judgment dated 16.10.1987. This appeal arises out of that judgment.
(3.) The plaintiffs case is that she is one of the co-owners of the house in question and that she is in exclusive possession. It is alleged that the said house had been renovated and modified in 1961 by her late husband and her husband's brother Vassudev Datye after obtaining licence from the Bi-cholim Municipality. She also contended that the land tax and other taxes in respect of the suit house are being paid by the plaintiff and her brother-in-law Vassudev in the name of Dondu Fotto Datye who was the father of the plaintiff s husband and of the said Vassudev. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the house came to be surveyed under No. 23/38 in the name of plaintiffs late husband Narayan and his brother Vassudev. It is alleged that the suit room of the house had been given on lease to a tailor namely the defendant No. 3 for commercial purpose to run a tailoring shop. Plaintiffs brother-in-law Vassudev is regularly receiving the rent and electricity charges in respect of the room. Before defendant No. 3 another tenant was occupying the room who was paying rent regularly to the plaintiffs late husband. It is also alleged that the defendant No. 1 Sushilabai has nothing to do with the suit room and the aforesaid Sushilabai had been staying for the last 20 years in a separate independent house and on 26.9.1978 the defendant No. 1 in collusion with the defendant No. 3 made the defendant No. 2 Assistant Engineer, Electricity Department, Bicholim to instal ameter in the suit room for the purpose of exclusive use by the defendant No. 3 in the suit house.;