Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead), By His Lrs. vs Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao on 9 August, 1989
(3) As noticed earlier, in the present case, the plaintiff has been in occupation of the premises in question doing business there for long, may be since 1963 when he obtained license from the authority concerned to do that business. The factum of anterior possession of the plaintiff is indicated in the defense in the W/S. It has found to be long one by the 1d. trial court. This "prolonged possession" is not disputed by the Id. Appellate Court as well Thus, the judgment of Karnataka High Court in K. V Narayan's case (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts and the instant case is fully covered by the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Krishna Ram Mahale's case (supra).