- (1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for perpetual injunction and possession.
(2.) THE suit was brought by two persons as plaintiffs. It was brought on the allegation that plaintiff 1 had given a licence to the defendant to take away the crop of the grove on payment by the defendant of a yearly rent of Rs. 24/ -. There was a further stipulation in the deed that the defendant would not be ejected so long as he continued to pay the yearly rent. The plaintiffs filed the suit alleging that the said licence had been revoked by plaintiff No. 1 and was no longer in force. In the alternative it was pleaded that plaintiff 2 who was a minor and was a co-sharer in the said grove being not a party to the said licence, the transaction was bad as a whole.
(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that he was not a mere licensee and under the terms of the deed, he could not be ejected so long as he continued to pay the yearly rent. It was also pleaded on his behalf that plaintiff 1 was managing the property on behalf of plaintiff 2 who was a minor and, therefore, plaintiff 2 was bound by the said transaction.;