A1 agreement, the licence, was renewed for a period of five years.
The suit was filed in the following factual background The plaint schedule property originally belonged to Francis Severance, the father of appellants 1 to 3 and grand father of appellants 4 and 5.
The explanation offered by the plaintiff as to why the suit was filed on 12.2.1996 has been ignored without reason.
Francis Severance had four children and one of the sons, Joseph Severnce, died in the year 1970.
A1 agreement, the licensee, Mathew died on 24.5.1994.
These vital aspects have been lost sight of by the High Court.
Though some other points were urged during trial and before the First Appellate Authority, they were decided against the defendants.
His widow was Hilda Severance.
After the death of Francis Severance the plaint schedule property devolved on appellants 1 to 3.
A2 numberice was sent to respondents which yielded numberresult.
No issue was framed by the trial Court about the maintainability or otherwise of the suit and even numberevidence was led or plea raised before the trial Court or before the first appellate Court that the suit was number maintainable having been filed after a long period.
In the meantime Hilda Severance also died.
After that Ext.
Said Francis Severance died in the year 1966.
After finding that their possession was as trespassers both the trial companyrt and the First Appellate Court held that mandatory injunction can be granted as prayed for by the plaintiffs.
Shri K.V. Mathew, the husband of the 2nd respondent and father of respondents 1 and 3 and the 4th respondent entered into an agreement of licence with appellants and Hilda Severance with respect to the plaint schedule property under which permission was granted to Mathew to companystruct a cinema theatre for a period of five years.
The claim of the defendants all through was that they were tenants and number trespassers.
The companydition in Ext.
Before the expiry of five years mentioned in Ext.
The suit was filed on 12.2.1996.
The trial companyrt as well as the First Appellate Court found that on the death of Mathew the licence came to an end and thereafter the possession of all the four defendants were as trespassers.
A1 agreement was that on the expiry of five years from 11.2.1991, the licensee had to surrender vacant possession of the plaint schedule property on demolishing the building and the structures thereon.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single judge of the Kerala High Court in a Second Appeal filed by the respondents holding that the suit filed by the present appellants as plaintiffs for mandatory injunction as well as for prohibitory injunction was number maintainable.
The licence was renewed from time to time and on 11.2.1991 by Ext.
