Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the suit property, along with claims for a permanent injunction, mesne profits, and damages (!) .

2. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property, having acquired it through a perpetual lease deed and subsequent conversion to freehold, with the property partially allotted to family members and used by the defendants under a license (!) (!) .

3. The defendants attempted to unlawfully access the property, prompting police complaints, and the plaintiff subsequently terminated the license, serving a legal notice to the defendants to vacate the premises (!) .

4. The defendant’s written statement raised technical objections, including the valuation of the suit for Court Fees, and disputed the plaintiff’s title, alleging forged documents and illegalities in property transfer documents (!) .

5. The court examined issues related to the maintainability of the suit, limitation period, valuation of the suit, and entitlement to mesne profits, ultimately holding that the suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable and filed within the prescribed limitation period (!) (!) (!) (!) .

6. The court found that the defendant, as a licensee, was obligated to vacate the property upon license termination and that the suit was filed with promptitude, making the claim for mandatory injunction valid (!) (!) (!) .

7. The court emphasized that even if there was some delay, it would not bar the suit, especially given prompt filing after license termination, and noted that licensees are generally required to surrender possession when the license ends (!) (!) .

8. The valuation of the suit for Court Fees was deemed proper, as the plaintiff exercised discretion in valuing the suit for a mandatory injunction, which does not require valuation at the market value of the property (!) (!) .

9. The court concluded that the defendant, as a licensee whose license had been terminated, had no right to remain on the property and was therefore liable to be evicted through a mandatory injunction (!) .

10. An enquiry into mesne profits was reserved for a future date, to be scheduled before the court, pending a determination of the plaintiff’s entitlement to damages for use and occupation (!) (!) .

These points summarize the court’s reasoning, findings, and orders based on the legal and factual issues raised in the case.