Arun Mishra, J.

The plaintiff has called in question judgment and decree dated 10-5-2001 passed by Second Addl. District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No. 12-A/2000.

The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for possession and for mesne profit with respect to the ancestral suit house situated at Marwadi Road, Bhopal. The property was owned by late Kunj Manohar Lal and Leeladhar. Their names were recorded as owner till 1923. Kunj Manohar Lal died issueless leaving behind Leeladhar as his only surviving legal representative. Leeladhar had three sons, namely Roshan Lal, Udaybhan and Bhanu Prakash. Bhanu Prakash died issueless sometime in the year 1939. Roshan Lal died in 1941 and Udaybhan also died in the year 1980. The share of Bhanu Prakash devolved upon Roshan Lal and Udaybhan and after their death property devolved on the plaintiffs the sons of Udaybhan and Roshan Lal. The plaintiffs averred that after death of Leeladhar, Roshan Lal and Udaybhan performed marriage of defendant No. 1 Smt. Sheelwati with Master Bhairo Prasad, who was a worker of Hindu Mahasabha, at the relevant time Nawab Hamidullah Khan was the Ruler of Bhopal, as such erstwhile Ruler was not happy due to activities of Bhairo Prasad. He had eight brothers, they wanted Bhairo Prasad to reside separately as they were in the service of erstwhile Ruler and the income of Bhairo Prasad was also insufficient. Considering the aforesaid difficulties faced by Smt. Sheelwati and Master Bhairo Prasad, Smt. Sheelwati was given the licence to reside in the part of disputed portion of the house. After death of Roshan Lal and Udaybhan, the licence was continued. As the defendants required further accommodation, additional two rooms were given on the ground floor to run a Typing Institute. They also constructed a underground water tank. The plaintiff wanted to dismantle the old structure and to reconstruct some of the portion of the house. However, defendants asserted their ownership and filed a Civil Suit in the Court of 7th ADJ, Bhopal for declaration of title, hence a notice was served by the plaintiffs on 1-1-1998 terminating the licence. The defendants were required to vacate the accommodation by 1-2-1998. The defendants did not reply nor vacated the house in spite of cancellation of licence, hence instant suit for ejectment and mesne profit was filed.

The defendants in their written statement denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that the date of death of Kunj Manohar Lal was not disclosed in the plaint. Leeladhar had eight daughters, one of them was defendant No. 1 Smt. Sheelwati. It was denied that Roshan Lal and Udaybhan succeeded to the property left by Leeladhar and Bhanu Prakash. Harish Chandra, an eldest son of Roshan Lal had sold certain portion of house No. 128. It was denied after death of Leeladhar, marriage of defendant No. 1 was performed by Roshan Lal and Udaybhan, in fact the marriage was performed by Banshidhar, elder brother of Leeladhar. Other facts were also denied. It was also specifically denied that Roshan Lal and Udaybhan inducted defendant Smt. Sheelwati as licensee, in fact Laxmi Narayan Agrawal, uncle of defendant No. 1 gave the disputed house "forever" to Shri Bhairo Prasad, husband of defendant No. 1 and thereafter for the last 65 years they have remained in occupation as its owner, their status as licensee was specifically denied. No cause of action arose to the plaintiff. The right in property was given to Bhairo Prasad forever and defendants remained in possession as owner. Bhairo Prasad obtained electricity connection etc. and enjoyed the property as an owner.

The parties have adduced, oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff as per impugned judgment and decree. The trial Court has found that Roshan Lal and Udaybhan had succeeded to the property left by Leeladhar and Bhanu Prakash. Roshan Lal and Udaybhan had given the licence to defendant No. 1 Smt. Sheelwati a