- (1.) This is the Plaintiff's appeal and it arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession on the allegation, inter alia, that the Defendant was a licensee. There was a claim also for mesne profits.
(2.) The suit property comprises c.s. plot No. 410, which originally belonged to the Defendant and his co-sharers. The Plaintiff claims to have purchased the land appertaining to the said c.s. plot, along with the kutcha structures or ghars standing thereon, by two kobalas dated December 4, 1935 and February 14, 1938. Thereafter, according to the Plaintiff, he raised a pucca one-storied building on the said land after demolishing the kutcha huts and allowed the Defendants, who was one of the original owners and whose interest had been purchased by him, as aforesaid, to occupy the same as licensee. The licence, according to the Plaintiff, was later on revoked and thereafter, the present suit was brought for eviction and recovery of possession.
(3.) The defence was a plea of adverse possession and also a plea that under an arrangement between the parties, the Defendant had a right to remain in possession and he actually remained in possession, even, after the sale to the Plaintiff, with a further allegation that the pucca structures, mentioned above, were raised by him and not the Plaintiff. There was an additional written statement, which was filed on July 31, 1956, whereby the Defendant questioned the Plaintiff's valuation of the suit property, the sufficiency of the court-fee paid by him and also raised a question of jurisdiction.;