JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. Heard finally with the consent of the parties taking into consideration that the nature of dispute is of eviction and plaintiffs are senior citizens.

2. The instant appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2022 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 17-A/2007 whereby the suit for declaration and eviction was allowed, however, the claim for mesne profit was denied. The appeal is preferred by Yusuf Gowri, who was defendant No. 1 before the trial Court. The cross objections has also been preferred by the plaintiff/respondents 1 and 2 for grant of mesne profits.

3. The suit was preferred by Smt. Pratibha Gupta and one Smt. Sarojani Gupta for declaration of possession, eviction and mesne profit. According to the plaintiffs, they own a superstructure of four storey building which is recorded in sheet No. 48A, Plot No. 130 admeasuring 74 square meters situated at Juni Hatri Rajnandgaon, which is more particularly shown in Annexure-A being part of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, in the suit premises initially one Dr. Shrote was running his Clinic, who was tenant of one Mahant Dharmendra Das. It is stated that Dharmendra Das got the suit premises vacated from Dr. Surekha Shrote, thereafter executed a sale-deed on 29.11.2008 (registered on 27.4.2009) and plaintiffs became the sole owners of the subject suit property. According to the plaint averments, initially the property was owned by one Mahant Ram Sewak Das Ji Vaishnav, who declared Dharmendra Das Vaishanav to be his successor. Consequently after death of Ram Sewak Das Vaishnav, Dharmendra Das Vaishnav being disciple became sole and exclusive owner of the suit property. As per plaint averments, after such purchase, names of the plaintiffs were mutated in Nazul records and in this regard order was passed on 21.8.2013.

4. The Plaintiffs further stated that defendant No. 1 Yusuf Gowri was carrying on business of making cotton mattresses, beside the suit premises and requested the plaintiffs to allow him to use premises for storing the mattresses in ground floor. Consequent thereupon, the ground floor was given as a licencee to defendant No. 1 Yusuf Gowri. Subsequently, it is alleged that durng passage of time, defendant no. 1 taking the advantage of plaintiffs' liberality broke open the lock of first floor and second floor of the said premises and took over the possession. It was further stated that without consent of the plaintiffs, defendant No. 2 namely-Md. Islamuddin Badgujar was inducted as a sub-tenant by defendant No. 1 Yusuf Gowri. In the suit, defendant No. 3 Pramod Das Bairagi was arrayed as defendant No. 3 and Haji Sadruddin Badgujar was arrayed as defendant No. 4. The plaintiffs further amended the plaint and added the pleading that defendant No. 4 Haji Sadruddin Badgujar was also put into possession, thereby further eviction was sought against defendants No. 1 to 4. The plaintiffs further contended that since defendant No. 1, who was inducted as licencee, committed breach of trust, as such his licence was terminated by notice dated 13.2.2017 and was asked to vacate the premises by 31.3.2017 but they failed to do so, therefore, the suit was filed for declaration, possession and mesne profit.

5. Per contra, in written statement filed by defendants 1 and 2, they denied all the plaint allegations and stated the property initially belonged to one Mahant Ram Sewak Das and he being a monk (Mahant) does not have any right to transfer the property in favor of a third party. The sale-deed dated 29.11.2008 (registered on 27.4.2009) was also denied. It was stated that the plaintiffs being ladies were never put into possession of the subject suit premises. Consequently, the sale-deeds were sham and bogus. It was further stated that in respect of property of the like nature, which belongs to religious trust, there cannot be transfer of the property and the suit filed for eviction is only on th