Licenses can be revoked, granting reasonable time for eviction; mere occupation under permission does not imply ownership.

JUDGMENT

1. The 2^nd and 5^th defendants in a suit are the appellants.

They are a mother and a minor son. The suit for mandatory injunction for eviction was filed by the plaintiff, a lady against her son, daughter in law and three children who are arrayed as defendants 1 to 5. The Trial Court decreed the suit, and the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.

Anandakrishan A. Kartha.

3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are: As per the plaint allegations, the defendants 2 to 5 have been residing in the plaint schedule property along with the plaintiff on account of the marriage of the 2^nd defendant with the 1^st defendant. There occurred certain disputes between defendants 1 and 2, and the 2^nd defendant has initiated several litigation against the 1^st defendant. The defendants have been residing in the plaint schedule property with the permission granted by the plaintiff who is the title holder of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate the plaint schedule property on 01/11/2015, and on account of their refusal, the present suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the house together with chattels was filed.

4. The 1^st defendant remained ex parte. Defendants 2 to 5 contested the suit by filing a Written Statement contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff does not have any right over the plaint schedule property. The defendant is in possession of the plaint schedule property. The defendants started residing in the plaint schedule building as per a decision taken in mediation in the year 2009. As per the said decision, it was agreed to transfer the plaint schedule property in the name of the 2^nd defendant, and the 2^nd defendant is allowed to reside in the building till the transfer of the said property. On the basis of the said decision, the 2^nd defendant and the children have been residing in the plaint schedule property since September

2009.

5. The Trial Court found that the defendants had been residing in the plaint schedule property on the basis of the permission granted by the plaintiff and accordingly decreed the suit granting mandatory injunction.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff had not proved possession over the plaint schedule property. When the possession of the plaint schedule property is disputed by the defendants 2 to 5, the Trial Court ought to have framed an issue in this regard. The date of termination of the alleged permission is not pleaded or proved. The plaintiff as PW1 has admitted that there was a mediation and there was a decision in the mediation. In such a case, she is also bound by the mediation decision, on the basis of which the defendants 2 to 5 are allowed to reside in the property.

7. On considering her contentions, I am of the view that, admittedly, the 2^nd defendant is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. She is the wife of the 1^st defendant who is the son of the plaintiff. It is in evidence that the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff. When it is admitted by the contesting defendants that there was an agreement to transfer the plaint schedule property in favour of the 2^nd defendant for settlement of all the claims and the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property is admitted. According to the 2^nd defendant, she started residing in the plaint schedule property on the basis of a mediation decision in September 2009. The details of the decision of the mediation are not in evidence though DW3 was examined in this regard. Even if there was a decision in the mediation, it is not in any way bind