Amit Rawal J. - (1.) The appellant-defendant is aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2013 rendered by the Lower Appellate Court, whereby, suit at the instance of respondent-plaintiff seeking relief of mandatory and permanent injunction for handing over the possession and branding the appellant as licensee, has been decreed.
(2.) Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate for the appellant-defendant submits that no doubt, at the time when the suit was filed, the respondent/plaintiff, who is none-else but father, who was alive when suit was instituted by branding the appellant as licencee, but during the pendency of the appeal, he has died intestate without leaving any Will and therefore, he would have a right to inherit the suit property being co-owner. He further submits that relationship of licensor and licensee is a personal and did not transferable, therefore, the respondent cannot seek execution of the decree as cause of action accrued in favour of the respondent-plaintiff (since deceased) ceased to exist. The subsequent event can be taken into consideration by the Court at any stage, much less, in the present appeal as the appeal is continuous of the suit.
(3.) Mr. Sachin Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the respondent-plaintiff is only seeking execution of the decree rendered in favour of Sagar Chand (since deceased). The suit would relate back to filing of the suit, much less the cause of action accrued, therefore, the subsequent event as sought to be projected and urged, would not be available. Once a licencee is always licencee and thus, urges this Court for affirming the findings under challenge.;