Possession based on a license can be challenged if contradictions in agreements and evidence arise, impacting the validity of claims under statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby suit filed by the appellant for mandatory injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had permitted defendants No.1 to 8 and their family members to look after and use the suit land as licensee. Plaintiff had permitted the said defendants to stay in the suit property as licensee on the condition that they would vacate the same as and when required by the plaintiff. The said defendants had accordingly continued to use the suit land without payment of any license fee. Plaintiff revoked the land license in February 1995 and asked defendants to vacate the same. However, the defendants had refused to do the needful. Hence, the present suit was filed on 31.05.1995

3. Vide judgment and decree dated 08.11.2007, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2010 with costs. Hence, present Second Appeal by the plaintiff.

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that learned Courts below were in error in non-suiting the appellant as they failed to appreciate that plaintiff had led sufficient evidence to prove that he had permitted the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants to live in plot as licensee. It is submitted that in the year 1971 and 1977, Agreement to Sell was executed. The defendants neither paid the sale consideration nor sought execution of the Sale Deed. As such, due to non carrying out of their part of the Agreement, the earnest money paid by the defendants was forfeited; and Agreement to Sell became non-est after lapse of more than 12 years. Yet, plaintiff had allowed the respondents to remain in possession as licensee as per their status before the execution of the said Agreement. However, defendants had taken undue advantage of the trust reposed in them by the plaintiff who permitted them to continue living in the said plot. It has been contended that act of the defendants itself is in contravention of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, these facts have not been appreciated by both the Courts below.

5. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff and submits that the plaintiff and defendant No.9 are real brothers. Plaintiff failed to prove on record any License Deed allegedly executed by him in favour of defendants No. 1 to 8. From the own case of the plaintiff, it is clear that defendants were in permissive possession of the suit property. Moreover, plaintiff in evidence has admitted Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1971; and Agreement dated 20.06.1977 executed in favour of defendant No.7, 8 and 5. As such, defendants are protected under provisions of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act . Learned counsel accordingly prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

7. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents.

8. It is the admitted case of the parties that plaintiff is owner of the suit property as evident from Jamabandi Ex.P1. The record amply bares out that the plaintiff had admitted