ORDER : Sonia Gokani, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2017 passed by the City Civil Court No. 18, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 3894 of 1997. 2. The brief facts are as follows: 2.1. The opponent shall be referred to as 'the plaintiff' and the appellant as 'the defendant' for the sake of convenience. 2.2. The appellant was the original defendant in the Suit. The opponent herein had filed suit being Civil Suit No. 3894 of 1997 for getting the possession of the property and mesne profit of Rs. 500/- per month. He has claimed to be the sole owner of the property situated at Ahmedabad in the area of Meghaninagar in Netajinagar Colony Block No. 27, Room No. 317 at 1st floor (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed property'). 2.3. The registered sale deed has been effected in favour of the plaintiff on 06.08.1994 at serial No. 1670. 2.4. The ownership of the disputed property was of the Gujarat Housing Board which was allotted by way of rental purchase system to one Shri Balabhai Gulabdas Patel on 01.07.1970. It is the case of the plaintiff that he transferred this property to one Karsanbhai Gulabdas Patel on 24.06.1992, who gave this property to the plaintiff-Narendrakumar Raghavji Patel. 2.5. After drawing the panchnama and considering the application of the plaintiff, the property had been transferred in the name of the plaintiff on his full payment of the consideration. 2.6. A notice came to be issued to the defendant on 17.04.1993 for unauthorized living in the said property. The penalty was also imposed upon him of Rs. 1,000/- and resolution was passed to transfer the property to the plaintiff. The Gujarat Housing Board accordingly carried out the conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff. 2.7. The defendant did not vacate the property, and therefore, a notice came to be issued on 22.07.1997 for handing over of the property, which he did not do. Hence, the suit came to be filed for getting the possession of the property and for mesne profit. 2.8. The defendant had severely resisted the Suit, after framing of the issues and parties have adduced the evidences, the Court below allowed the same on 29.11.2017, and hence, this appeal. 3. Hence, the suit came to be filed for getting the possession of the property and for mesne profit. 2.8. The defendant had severely resisted the Suit, after framing of the issues and parties have adduced the evidences, the Court below allowed the same on 29.11.2017, and hence, this appeal. 3. It is needed to be mentioned at the outset that prior to the filing of the appeal, in the Execution Petition preferred by the plaintiff, the possession of the property has already been handed over to the plaintiff and the issue remains so far as the plaintiff is concerned of the mesne profit. 4. So far as the defendant - appellant herein is concerned, he has a serious grievance of the possession having been taken over and has also pleaded that plaintiff has compared with the record of the Housing Board and has got the registration done in his favour. He also has a grievance that the plaintiff has no business to ask for the mesne profit or to get the registration done in his favour, when the original allottee was one Mr. Balabhai Gulabdas Patel. It is the consistent stand of the defendant that the original allottee in the year 1970 was Shri. Balabhai Gulabdas Patel, who had given the Power of Attorney to one Shri. Karsanbhai Gulabdas Patel and through whom the original plaintiff - present opponent had claimed the right in the Gujarat Housing Board, and in connivance with the plaintiff had ousted the defendant. 5. This Court has heard at length learned advocate Ms. Bhavika Kotecha who appeared in legal aid for the appellant - defendant and learned advocate Mr. Vasim Mansuri for the present opponent - original plaintiff in this appeal. 6. The Court has also taken into consideration, the authorities which have been relied upon by the parties. 7. On due consideration of the submission of both the sides and the materials which has come on record in the form of the documentary as well as oral evidences of the parties before the trial Court, it can be noticed that the property in question is situated at Ahmedabad in the area of Meghaninagar in Netajinagar Colony Block No. 27, Room No. 317 at 1st floor. The said property was owned by the Gujarat Housing Board. The said property was owned by the Gujarat Housing Board. This was allotted to one Balabhbai Gulabdas Patel on 01.07.1970, then he gave it to one Karsanbhai Gulabbhai Patel, without any permission of the Gujarat Housing Board on 24.06.1992. A notice came to be issued by the Gujarat Housing Board on 17.04.1993 and fine has been imposed on those occupying illegally. However, resolution also came to be passed to transfer this property in favour of the plaintiff, who was said to be occupying the property at the relevant point time. 8. The defendant's claim is that he has been residing in this property unauthorizedly and continued to occupy the same till he was compelled to vacate, after the decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff. 9. The defendant had been issued the notice on 22.07.1997 and his case from the beginning was that he was enjoying the peaceful possession of the property and it was the plaintiff who has wrongly got it transferred in his name. The Panchnama which had been drawn, also has no valid basis. With these details, the evidence which is on the record, the question that arise for consideration of this Court is as to whether any illegality has been committed by the trial Court in directing the vacation of the premise and also in awarding mesne profit of Rs. 500/- per month from 06.08.1994. 10. It is to be noted that the registered sale deed has been effected in favour of the plaintiff on 26.07.1994 and the notice came to be issued on the defendant for vacating the premise on 22.07.1997. At no stage, any action has been initiated by the defendant against the Gujarat Housing Board or against the plaintiff - opponent herein. Although, he had claimed the adverse inference and also had sought the relief under the Specific Relief Act. It was his case that he continued to reside at this place with his family and he also gave a police complaint to the Meghaninagar Police Station, Ahmedabad on 30.12.1990 unnecessary harassment of disturbance to him and on non-issuance of the receipt by Shri. Balabhai Gulabdas Patel - the original allottee, his nephew - Jashvantbhai Balabhai and his brother - Karshanbhai Ambalal. Their attempts to forcibly vacant him was also complained. 11. This Court notices that the issues which have been framed by the Court have been dealt with exhaustively. Their attempts to forcibly vacant him was also complained. 11. This Court notices that the issues which have been framed by the Court have been dealt with exhaustively. The Court also has come to the conclusion that certain details have been called for under the Right to Information Act, but that does not establish his status as a tenant. Considering the status of the plaintiff as the owner of the property; the Court has concluded that all the documents including municipal tax receipts, etc., would lead to the single most conclusion that the premise has been wrongly and unauthorizedly occupied by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the peaceful and vacant possession of the said property with mesne profit. 12. It is given to understand to this Court by the learned advocate Ms. Bhavika Kotecha that the complaint which had been filed in the year 1990 was on account of some disturbance on the part of the original allottee and his family. However, once the complaint had been made to Meghaninagar Police Station, Ahmedabad, there was no disturbance, and therefore, he has not given such FIR a logical end. She further submitted that, Special Civil Application No. 13908 of 2014 had been preferred before this Court, wherein, he had requested for conveyance deed to be executed in his favour by the Gujarat Housing Board and the said petition has been disposed of, after he handed over the vacant possession to the plaintiff, pursuant to the execution petition preferred by the plaintiff-opponent herein. 13. His claim, even otherwise has come to an end. There may be a possibility of his having occupied the premise at the behest of one of the allottees or the power of attorney holder, the fact remains that in plaintiff's favour the conveyance deed has been executed by the Gujarat Housing Board and there has been no challenge to the said conveyance deed by defendant either by preferring the suit or by any other proceedings. His own claim to have the conveyance deed in his favour, also has been terminated by this Court by subsequent events. 14. The reference will be necessary of the case of Jagjitsingh Bhagsingh Arora v. Vibhaben Rajpal Tyagi and Anr. His own claim to have the conveyance deed in his favour, also has been terminated by this Court by subsequent events. 14. The reference will be necessary of the case of Jagjitsingh Bhagsingh Arora v. Vibhaben Rajpal Tyagi and Anr. reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1063 , wherein, this Court has held that in order to claim protection as tenant, plaintiff - tenant was required to produce documentary evidence showing the relationship of the landlord and tenant. In case of oral lease, the evidence as to payment of rent must be shown. The Court has referred to certain decisions on these aspects in para 8 to 14 which reads as under: 8. It would be worthwhile to make a mention of the judgment sought to be relied upon rendered in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (dead) through L.Rs. [Supra]. In this decision, reference is made of various decisions, as to be discussed hereinafter. 9. In case of Rame Gowda (dead) by Lrs. Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by Lrs. & Anr., reported in (2004) 1 SCC 769 , it has been observed by the Bench of three judges of the Apex Court that the plea of possession is no good against the rightful owner and assumption that the person is in peaceful possession will not work and cannot operate against the true lawful owner. Yet another decision rendered in case of Southern Roadways Ltd., Madurai Vs. S.M. Krishnan, reported in (1989) 4 SCC 603 has been referred, wherein the Supreme Court held that, "it is the settled law that agent has no possession of his own and care takers possession is the possession of the principal". Reference is also made to the decision of Supreme Court in case of Anima Mallick Vs. Ajoy Kumar Roy and Anr., (2000) 4 SCC 119 , where the sister gave possession gratuitously to the brother and the Court restored possession to the sister as it was purely on gratuitous basis holding that the sister could have reclaimed possession even without knowledge of the brother. 10. Case laws of Automobile Products India Limited Vs. Das John peter and Others (2010) 12 SCC 593 and Ramrameshwari Devi and Others Vs. 10. Case laws of Automobile Products India Limited Vs. Das John peter and Others (2010) 12 SCC 593 and Ramrameshwari Devi and Others Vs. Nirmala Devi and Others (2011) 8 SCC 249 are discussed where the Apex Court has held that dilatory tactics, misconceived injunction suits create incentives for wrongdoers and held that, "truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engaged themselves in a journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty. The judicial system will acquire credibility only when people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth." Decision also referred to relied upon is of Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India, [1991] Supp. (1) SCC 271, where the Supreme Court reiterated need of discovering truth in every matter and deliver the parties their due they deserve in these words, ".. It is a well accepted and settled principle that a Court must discharge its statutory functions-whether discretionary or obligatory-according to law in dispensing justice because it is the duty of a Court not only to do justice but also to ensure that justice is being done. What people expect is that the court should discharge its obligation to find out where in fact the truth lies. Right from inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying the existence of the courts of justice". 11. Apex Court in case of Ritesh Tewari and another Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 677 , has quoted often quoted quotation, which reads thus- "Every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest" and held that, ".. It would be imperative that one who claims possession must give all such details as enumerated hereunder. They are only illustrative and not exhaustive. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 677 , has quoted often quoted quotation, which reads thus- "Every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest" and held that, ".. It would be imperative that one who claims possession must give all such details as enumerated hereunder. They are only illustrative and not exhaustive. (a) Who is or are the owner of the property; (b) title of the property; (c) Who is in possession of the title documents (d) identity of the claimant or claimants to possession; (e) the date of entry into possession; (f) how he came into possession-whether he purchased the property or inherited or got the same in gift or by any other method; (g) in case he purchased the property, what is the consideration; if he has taken it on rent, how much is the rent, license fee or lease amount; (h) If taken on rent, license fee or lease-then insist on rent deed, license deed or lease deed; (i) who are the persons in possession/occupation or otherwise living with him, in what capacity; as family members, friends or servants etc.; (j) subsequent conduct, i.e., any event which might have extinguished his entitlement to possession or caused shift therein; and (k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but continue in possession. 71. Apart from these pleadings, the Court must insist on documentary proof in support of the pleadings. All those documents would be relevant which come into existence after the transfer of title or possession or the encumbrance as is claimed. While dealing with the civil suits, at the threshold, the Court must carefully and critically examine pleadings and documents. 72. The court will examine the pleadings for specificity as also the supporting material for sufficiency and then pass appropriate orders. Discovery and production of documents and answers to interrogatories, together with an approach of considering what in ordinary course of human affairs is more likely to have been the probability, will prevent many a false claim or defences from sailing beyond the stage for issues. 84. False claims and defences are really serious problems with real estated litigation, predominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate. 84. False claims and defences are really serious problems with real estated litigation, predominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate. Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settled with them by paying a huge amount. This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our Courts. If pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimized to a large extent. 97. This Court in Puran singh Vs. The State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 518 held that an occupation of the property by a person as an agent or a servant at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual physical possession. 101. Principles of law which emerge in this case are crystallized as under:- No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property. 1. Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand. 2. The Courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as servant. 3. The protection of the Court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his favour. The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession. 12. She has also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of Wander Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Antox India P. Ltd., reported in 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 727. where the court has the discretionary relief - when it should be granted and the factors which needs to be considered at the time of grant of such relief. 12.1. In case of Premji Ratansey Shah & others Vs. Vs. Antox India P. Ltd., reported in 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 727. where the court has the discretionary relief - when it should be granted and the factors which needs to be considered at the time of grant of such relief. 12.1. In case of Premji Ratansey Shah & others Vs. Union of India & others, reported in (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 547, the Court held that no injunction can be issued in favour of a trespasser or a person who gained unlawful possession as against the true owner because it is a discretionary and equitable relief. 13. Both the sides sought reliance in case of Rame Gowda (dead) by Lrs. Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by Lrs. & Anr., [Supra] which speaks of concept of settled possession of an occupant who cannot be dispossessed without recourse to law. In this decision the court reiterated the test laid down in case of Puran Singh Vs. State of Punjab., reported in (1975) 4 SCC 518 . It would be worthwhile to reproduce observations of the Supreme Court made in case of Rame Goowda [Supra], which reads thus- "8. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of Limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force. In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any property may prevent even by using reasonable force a trespasser from an attempted trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or is of a filmsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray or casual in nature or has just been committed, while the rightful owner did not have enough time to have recourse to law. In the last of the cases, the possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner. 9. It is the settled possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. The concept of settled possession and the right of the possessor to protect his possession against the owner has come to be settled by a catena of decisions. Illustratively, we may refer to Munshi Ram and Ors. v. Delhi Administration, (1968) 2 SCR 455 , Puran Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 518 and Ram Rattan and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 188 . The authorities need not be multiplied. In Munshi Ram and Ors.'s case (supra), it was held that no one, including the true owner, has a right to dispossess the trespasser by force if the trespasser is in settled possession of the land and in such a case unless he is evicted in the due course of law, he is entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner. But merely stray or even intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner. The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the right owner must be settled possession, extending over a sufficiently long period of time and acquiesced to by the true owner. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. The rightful owner may re-enter and reinstate himself provided he does not use more force than is necessary. Such entry will be viewed only as resistance to an intrusion upon his possession which has never been lost. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. The rightful owner may re-enter and reinstate himself provided he does not use more force than is necessary. Such entry will be viewed only as resistance to an intrusion upon his possession which has never been lost. A stray act of trespass, or a possession which has not matured into settled possession, can be obstructed or removed by the true owner even by using necessary force. In Puran Singh and Ors.'s case (supra), the Court clarified that it is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to when the possession of a trespasser can mature into settled possession. The 'settled possession' must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt and concealment by the trespasser. The phrase settled possession does not carry any special charm of magic in it, nor is it a ritualistic formula which can be confined in a strait-jacket. An occupation of the property by a person as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual physical possession. The Court laid down the following tests which may be adopted as a working rule for determining the attributes of 'settled possession': (i) that the trespasser must be in actual physical possession of the property over a sufficiently long period; (ii) that the possession must be to the knowledge (either express of implied) of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser and which contains an element of animus possidendi. The nature of possession of the trespasser would however, be a matter to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. (iii) the process of dispossession of the true owner by the trespasser must be complete and final and must be acquiesced to by the true owner; and (iv) that one of the usual tests to determine the quality of settled possession, in the case of cultivable land, would be whether or not the trespasser, after having taken possession, had grown any crop. If the crop had been grown by the trespasser, then even the true owner has no right to destroy the crop grown by the trespasser and take forcible possession. 10. In the cases of Munshi Ram and Ors. If the crop had been grown by the trespasser, then even the true owner has no right to destroy the crop grown by the trespasser and take forcible possession. 10. In the cases of Munshi Ram and Ors. (supra) and Puran Singh and Ors. (supra), the Court has approved the statement of law made in Horam v. Rex, AIR 1949 All 564 , wherein a distinction was drawn between the trespasser in the process of acquiring possession and the trespasser who had already accomplished or completed his possession wherein the true owner may be treated to have acquiesced in while the former can be obstructed and turned out by the true owner even by using reasonable force, the latter, may be dispossessed by the true owner only by having recourse to the due process of law for re-acquiring possession over his property." 14. Thus, crux of this judgment as could be discerned is that the possession of a trespasser could mature into the settled possession which must be effected in disturbing and to the knowledge of the owner. Therefore, the question that would arise is as to whether the person claiming the possession even if is a trespasser is in equilibrium of the property over a sufficiently long period and whether such possession is to the knowledge of the owner and process of dispossession of the true owner by a trespasser has been final and equilibrium to by the true owner. Some of the other decisions sought to be relied upon by the petitioner are as follows:- {1} In case of Tulsi Vs. Smt. Paro (dead), reported in 1997 (I) RCR p. 281 {2} In case of R. Venkataswami Naidu v. M/s. South India Viscose Limited, Coimbatore, reported in AIR 1985 Madras 257; {3} Smt. Rajnibai alia Mannubai v. Smt. Kamla Devi & Ors., reported in AIR 1996 SC 1946 ; {4} Sukkha Singh & Anr. vs. Mahal Singh & Anr., reported in AIR 2003 Rajasthan 21; {5} In case of Prataprai N. Kothari Vs. John Braganza, reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court, p. 1666. {6} Mohd. Sharif v. ADJ No. 2 Sikar & Anr., reported in AIR 2004 Rajasthan 58; {7} Ramji Rai & Anr. v. Jagdish Mallah (Dead) thro. L.Rs. & Anr., reported in AIR 2007 SC 900 ." 15. John Braganza, reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court, p. 1666. {6} Mohd. Sharif v. ADJ No. 2 Sikar & Anr., reported in AIR 2004 Rajasthan 58; {7} Ramji Rai & Anr. v. Jagdish Mallah (Dead) thro. L.Rs. & Anr., reported in AIR 2007 SC 900 ." 15. In the instant case also, as rightly pointed out there is not a single document indicating his relationship either to allottee or anyone and that also has weighed with the trial Court in denying him any relief. 16. In that eventuality, that does not appear to be any reason for the Court to interfere in the appeal preferred by the original defendant before this Court. Resultantly, that aspect does not deserve any interference. 17. With regard to mesne profit, the Court has specified Rs. 500/- per month. It is not in dispute that the same has been directed from 06.08.1994, there is nothing to show that he has paid any amount to any authority. According to him, nobody had issued any receipt to him, though it was paid to one of the allottees. In absence of any documentary evidence or any written proof, it is not believable, however, considering his advance age, since he is of 75 years and also bearing in mind that the possession of the property is already handed over to the plaintiff - opponent herein & the Court also notices that he needed to engage a lawyer in legal aid, his poverty-stricken condition further leads this Court to reduce the amount of mesne profit by way of total sum of Rs. 50/- per month instead of Rs. 500/- per month. 18. In view of the above, the First Appeal stands disposed of. 19. R & P be sent back to the concerned Court. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION: In view of the order passed in First Appeal, Civil Application does not survive, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The Civil Application stands dismissed, accordingly.