ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed a suit for permanent injunction, possession and damages against the appellant and the proforma respondent No. 3 on the premise that they were licensees, in respect of part of the house belonging to Baij Nath and, therefore, had no manner of right whatsoever to be in possession after the revocation of the licence. The appellant set up the plea that he contributed half of the amount in the construction of the house along with Baij Nath and that he has been residing therein ever since. The house also was got mutated in 1957 in the joint name of himself and Baij Nath and, therefore, the injunction sought for could not be granted. Both the trial Court as well as the first appellate court had negatived the case of the respondents and dismissed the suit. In the second appeal, the learned single Judge of the High Court framed two questions for consideration, namely, whether merely by contributing some amount towards construction of the disputed house, the appellant can claim half share in the house and whether the judgment of the two courts below are the result of total mis-reading of evidence and of recording the finding while i