A licensee of immovable property, such as profits a prendre, has an independent right to sue for an injunction to protect his interest in the property, but such right is limited to the duration of the license.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff has alleged that the three disputed plots belonged to pro forma defendant No. 2 who retained the same under the provisions of the West Bengal Acquisition Act. He paid licence fee of Rs. 300/- and on the 15th Sravan, 1375 B. S. , took a licence of that property for that year from Pro forma defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 1 came to catch fish from that pond, but he put up obstruction. Due to such threat, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit for a permanent injunction on declaration that he is a licensee regarding that property in question under pro forma defendant No. 2.

( 2 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 has filed a written statement denying the plaintiffs allegations. His defence is that out of the big plot No. 518, he took settlement of two bighas on the north east from pro forma defendant No. 2. He is in possession of that property. One Nitya Gopal Biswas took settlement of plot No. 293 and the area of the land taken settlement of by the latter from pro forma defendant No. 2 is 2. 72 acres. He is a bargadar of that land under Nitya Gopal.

( 3 ) THE learned Munsif believed the plaintiff's version and decreed the suit. The defendant No. 1 filed an appeal. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the learned Munsif and held that the case of the plaintiffs right in the disputed property as a licensee was true. The defendant No. 1 had no interest in two bighas of land out of the disputed plot No. 518. Nitya Gopal's case of settlement of 2. 72 acres of land was not true. The appeal was dismissed. Hence this appeal on behalf of the defendant No, 1.

( 4 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the appellant that when the judgment was delivered, the plaintiff was no longer a licensee regarding the disputed property. The case became infructuous, when the appeal was filed, p. W. 3, Gunindra Choudhury, admitted the receipts, Exts. A to A/2. But the courts below did not consider this material evidence. Defendant No. 1 called for the Muris from the office of the pro forma defendant No. 2, but those documents were not produced. Hence there will be an adverse inference against the pro forma defendant No. 2 for non-production of those documents. The learned courts below illegally rejected the evidence of the D. Ws. The entire evidence given by them was not discussed or considered. The evidence of P. W. 3, Gunindra Choudhury, was also not considered. There was a case with Maharaja of Nadia pro forma defendant No. 2, under Section 144 of the Criminal P. C. because there was an obstruction of the way to the disputed property and a police report. Ext. I, was submitted. But the courts below did not consider that report, Ext. I The letter, Ext. E, written from the office of the Maharaja of Nadia shows that a direction was given to Bata Krishto Mondal not to depose in favour of defendant No. 1 Bata Krishto was intentionally withheld by pro forma defendant No. 2 and hence, there will be an adverse inference against him. In fact, pro forma defendant No. 2 has been pulling the strings from behind. The courts below illegally rejected the dakhilas, Ext. B series.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate appearing On behalf of the respondent No. 1 supported the decision of the courts below.

( 6 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 has stated that the appellant does not claim any title to the plot No. 293. He only says that the plot was erroneously recorded in the name of pro forma defendant No. 2 in the R. S. Khatian.

( 7 ) NOW question arises whether the appellant has any interest in two bighas of land on the north-eastern portion of the big plot No. 518. That plot measures 17. 94 acres. No commission was taken out by defendant No. 1 to establish the identity regarding the alleged two bighas of land. Moreover, both the courts below have concurrently disbelieved this portion of the appellant's case. Hence in second appeal this finding of fact cannot be disturbed.

( 8 ) THE appellant does not cla