S.S.SUDHALKAR,J - (1.) I have heard the appellant in person. He has been unsuccessful in both the courts below.
(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 10, 11 and 12 are brothers and sister, respectively, of the appellant and they are proforma respondents in this case. Triloki Nath deceased husband of respondent No. 1 was the father of respondents No. 2 to 5. Respondents No. 3 and 6 are the same persons. The father of Triloki Nath i.e. Mangat Ram, had sister named Chhoti Devi. Chhoti Devi is the wife of Avinash Chander-father of the appellants and respondents No. 10, 11 and 12. The suit was filed by the appellant against respondents No. 1 to 5 with a prayer of mandatory injunction that said respondents be directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property and also that they be restrained from alienating or transferring the suit property or disposing it of in any other manner. The case of the appellant is that he and respondents No. 10. to 12 are the owners of the property in dispute but the same is in possession of respondents No. 1 to 4 in different portions. One Bir Singh, minor son of Har Bilas, was initially the owner of the property in dispute and the same was sold by him to Shiv Chander in the year 1926. Shiv Chander was the father of Avinash Chander and grand-father of the appellant. Avinash Chander expired on 21.12.1983. According to the case of the appellant, Avinash Chander became the owner of the property in dispute having inherited it from his father Shiv Chander. After purchasing the property, Shiv Chander had demolished that house and raised a new construction after seeking necessary permission from Municipal Committee, Karnal. Mangat Ram, who was the elder brother of the wife of Avinash Chander was given the property in dispute on 6.5.1939 for residential purposes on account of love and affection as he had no other comfortable accommodation and was having bad financial circumstances. He was, according to the appellant, inducted into the possession of the property in dispute as a licensee. However, he took undue advantage of the leniency of Shiv Chander and did not vacate the premises and started asserting his title. This forced Shiv Chander to file suit No. 441 of 1944 in the court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Karnal and the same was decreed on 28.5.1945. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, Mangat Ram filed an appeal which was dismissed on 29.10.1945. He had filed a regular second appeal in the High Court at Lahore which was also dismissed on 18.4.1947.
(3.) AFTER the dismissal of the appeal, Shiv Chander wanted to take possession of the property in dispute from Mangat Ram but certain common relatives of the parties intervened and persuaded him not to do so and allowed Mangat Ram to remain in possession of the property in dispute as a licensee on compassionate grounds. According to the appellant, Mangat Ram remained in possession of property in dispute as a licensee during the life time of Avinash Chander. Though, Avinash Chander served a notice in the month of March, 1983 revoking the licence of Mangat Ram with regard to the property in dispute but he did not respond to that notice and his status was reduced to that of trespasser.;