JUDGMENT

The dispute is centering around a document of settlement executed by one Hilda Bayer for herself and also the power holder of her children in favour of the father of the first defendant. The plaintiff came up with a suit for partition alleging that the property originally belonged to her mother. But, no document of acquisition of right, title or interest over the property was either produced or let in evidence. Inter alia, it was contended that she had constructed a building over the property which was admitted by the first defendant's father, based on which it was argued by the learned counsel for the defendants 2 and 3 who are the appellants in RFA No.211/2014 that the matter would come under the purview of Section 60 (b) of Indian Easements Act and the construction would constitute an irrevocable licence. But, it is against the stand taken by the very same defendants before the trial court by raising a counter claim for partition and entitlement of one share each. It is not permissible to raise contradictory and inconsistent pleading by the defendants, though it is permissible up to the stage of adducing evidence. Before the stage of adducing evidence, the defendants ha