DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) A suit for declaration of title, khas possession and damages was dismissed on appeal, after the same was decreed, giving rise to the present second appeal. The impugned judgment was, therefore, of reversal.
(2.) THE plaintiffs claimed ownership of the suit premises. The plaintiffs claimed that, the Defendant No. 1 was the caretaker who looked after the suit premises at a monthly salary of Rs.45/ - per month. The plaintiffs allowed the Defendant No. 1 to reside at the suit premises by erecting temporary structures thereat. The temporary structures erected at the suit property were at the cost of the plaintiffs. The Defendant No. 1 was allowed into the suit property as a licensee. The Defendant No. 1, without any permission of the plaintiffs, allowed the Defendant No. 2 into the suit land. The Defendant No. 2 was the son -in -law of the Defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs revoked the leave and licence of the defendants. The plaintiffs terminated the service of the Defendant No. 1 in the first week of September 1978. In spite of repeated requests, the defendants did not vacate the suit premises. The plaintiffs lodged a complaint with the police authorities. The plaintiffs, thereafter, filed the suit for eviction of the defendants.
(3.) THE defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendants contended that, the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit property and at least not since January 3, 1963. The suit property was uncared for filled with jungles and bushes when the Defendant No. 1 entered into possession of the suit property. The Defendant No. 1 developed the land with the help of the Defendant No. 2. Since January 3, 1963 the defendants were enjoying the suit property peacefully and without interruption. The defendants claimed adverse possession. ;