PARAS RAM Vs. B S AMARMEET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs' second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiffs for possession of land measuring 11 Marias and for recovery of Rs. 1,000.00 as mesne profits, for the use and occupation of the suit land, has been dismissed.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that land measuring 4 kanals 11 marla was owned by four brothers, namely, three plaintiffs and Tilak Raj, respondent No. 2. Plaintiffs alleged that respondent No. 1, namely, B. S. Amarmeet son of Charan Singh had encroached upon a part of land measuring 4 kanals 11 Marla and had constructed a house thereon. Plaintiffs alleged that respondent No. 1 had done so by taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiffs were not the local residents as all the three were living outside Pathankot. Plaintiffs thus prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to deliver possession to the plaintiffs after removing the construction. Respondent No. 1 contested the suit. He pleaded that the second respondent being one of the co-owners, had transferred the possession of the land to him and consented to the construction to be raised by him. He thus pleaded that his possession could not be characterised as that of trespasser nor the plaintiffs could seek his ejectment.

(3.) TRIAL Court dismissed the suit and in appeal by the plaintiffs, the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been affirmed. It was held that status of defendant No. 1 being that of a licensee, he has every right to continue in occupation. It was also held that there could be no question of payment of mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the land in question as respondent No. 1 came in possession with the consent of the co-owner.