YOGENDER NATH Vs. PREM LATA

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.