Judgment

Mr. Sudhir Mittal, J.

This regular second appeal arises out of a suit for mandatory injunction filed by the respondent directing the defendant to vacate the suit property. The suit has been decreed and first appeal filed by the defendant along with cross objections preferred by the plaintiff have been dismissed. Thus, a decree for mandatory injunction has been passed directing the defendant to vacate the suit property and handover vacant possession. He has further been directed to pay mesne profits amounting to Rs.99,000/- along with future interest @ 6% per annum till the date of realization.

2. The case set up by the plaintiff was that a plot was allotted to him in the year 1984 on which a house was constructed by him about 6-7 years later. Initially, the property was rented out as the plaintiff was residing in accommodation provided to him by his employer i.e. Panjab University. Thereafter, the defendant (being blood brother) was permitted to reside therein as licensee till the plaintiff retired from service. The last instalment was paid in the year 2012. The water & electricity meter were in his name. In the year 2013, differences arose with the defendant as he did not permit the plaintiff to construct a first floor. He retired on 30.08.2014 and requested the defendant to handover possession which was refused. Licence was revoked on 15.09.2014 and suit was filed on 07.10.2014.

3. In his written statement, the defendant claimed title to the suit property. It was stated that although application for allotment of plot was submitted in the name of the plaintiff, all instalments had been paid by him. The receipts evidencing payment of instalments were handed over to the plaintiff in good faith. Construction was also raised by the defendant. In the alternative, it was pleaded that title had been acquired by way of adverse possession. A meeting had been held with relations wherein the plaintiff had agreed to sell the property on payment of Rs.13.5 lacs. Receipt of notice revoking the licence was denied.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the defendant-appellant had proved raising of construction by him. For this purpose reliance has been placed upon statements of DW-2 Mohinder Singh, another brother of the parties and DW-3-Kela Rani, a neighbour. Cross-examination of PW-1 (plaintiff) has also been referred to in this regard as the plaintiff admitted therein that he did not have documents showing that construction had been raised by him. Thus, permanent construction having been raised by the defendant, the licence had become irrevocable and the suit could not have been decreed. Reliance is placed upon Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by LRs vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and others, AIR 1987 (SC) 1242. It has also been argued that suit for mandatory injunction was not maintainable because question of title was involved and accordingly, a suit for possession should have been filed. For this purpose, reliance has been placed upon Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and others, AIR 2008 SC 2033.

5. Finally, it has been argued that all requirements of proving adverse possession stood fulfilled and thus, the Courts below were in error in decreeing the suit.

6. Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has submitted that the evidence on record shows that the property in dispute was allotted to the plaintiff and all instalments were paid by him. Title was admitted and thus, there was no dispute regarding the same. Being a licensee, the defendant could have been directed to handover vacant possession by way of mandatory injunction. Adverse possession was not established as the defendant has not proved the starting point of his alleged adverse possession. Long pos