Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2006 which had reversed the finding of the trial judge dated 14.03.2005. Vide judgment and decree dated 14.03.2005, the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking possession of the suit property (i.e. property bearing No. 3, Part of Dharamshala Lala Lachman Dass bearing No. 1840 to 1854, Jamna Bazar, Nigam Bodh Ghat, Delhi as depicted in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW-1/8) had been decreed. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding; suit of the plaintiffs stood dismissed.

2. Case of the plaintiffs as is borne out from the pleadings is that the plaintiffs are the trustees of the aforenoted Dharamshala Lala Lachman Dass Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust). The plaintiffs had built 14 shops at the site and since then were managing the affairs of the trust. Lala Lachman Dass died on 16.10.1963. By virtue of a registered Will dated 02.12.1942 the following persons were left as his legetees:

1.

Babu Tara Chand Advocate

2.

L. Sada Nand Gurwale

3.

L. Johri Mal

4.

L. Brij Bhushan Sharan All

5.

Sh. Brij Mohan Sharan sons

6.

Sh. Madan Mohan Sharan of

7.

Sh.Brij Behari Sharan L. Lachman

8.

Sh. Brij Raj Sharan Dass

3. The defendant was a licencee in the suit property in terms of the licence deed dated 4.6.1992; he had caused damage to the suit premises. In spite of legal notice dated 24.1.1994 revoking his licence the defendant had failed to vacate the suit property; present suit was accordingly filed.

4. Defendant Harish Chander contested the suit. It was stated that the premises are under the tenancy of the deceased son of the defendant Vijender Kumar who was a tenant in respect of one room and covered verandah which is now in occupation of his legal heirs i.e. the defendants. The premises had been let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose; widow of Vijender Kumar is carrying on her business in the said property; the site plan has not correctly depicted the suit property; under the garb of the present suit the plaintiffs are seeking possession of the portion shown in red which is the occupation of the daughter-in-law of the defendant which was not a part of the tenancy created by the plaintiff in favour of Harish Chander. It was further denied that the plaintiffs are the trustees of the suit property.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following seven issues were framed:

"1.

Whether the suit has not been instituted plaint signed and verified by duly authorized person? OPP

2.

Whether there is no cause of action against defendant? OPD

3.

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the present suit? OPD

4.

Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

5.

Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties? OPD

6.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of possession, as prayed for? OPP

7.

Relief."

6. Oral and documentary evidence was led. On the pleadings of the parties as also the oral and documentary evidence adduced the suit of the plaintiff was had been decreed.

7. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding; suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The court was of the view that no licence had been created in favour of the defendants. No room number had been allotted to the rooms constructed on the Dharamshala; plaintiff was not entitled to the relief claimed by him.

8. This is a second appeal. It has been admitted and on 25.5.2007, the following substantial question of law had been formulated:-

1.

Whether the trust deed and licence deed stand proved in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act?

2.

Whether the appellants have been able to identify the premises in dispute?

9. On behalf of the appellant, it has been urged that the impugned judgment suffers from a perversity; the suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed by drawing an adverse inference for not having produced the earlier license deed i.e. the license deed prior to 04.06.1992 which as per the impugned judgment would have depicted the correct number