The trial companyrt had decreed the suit after repelling the plea of limitation, set up inconsistently with a plea of tenancy right by Bajrang Bali Engineering Company, defendant No.
Defendant No.
The Plaintiff had asserted his rights within a reasonable time after learning of the trespass.
3.50 n.p.
1 on 24.3.1950 to 21.5.1951 and then 1.9.52 to 8.5.53.
175/ per day with effect from 25.2.55 and the award of Rs.
The High Court had also repelled the pleas of the defendants, who mainly relied on waiver and estoppel, but, it modified the decree for mesne profits by awarding only Rs.
1 who had neither appealed in the High Court number is among the appellants before us, had failed to establish its claim that it has authority from the plaintiff to either use the land for dumping scrap iron or to let it out to any party as the plaintiffs agent.
1 which even alleged to be agents of the plaintiff for letting out lands to others.
But, the terms of the companypromise decrees had number been carried out by defendant No.
1 had agreed to pay for use and occupation.
The plaintiff had reserved his rights to sue for eviction later.
He did number stand by watching valuable companystructions being put up on his land, but had sent a numberice objecting to the trespass as soon as he learnt of it.
Compromise decrees had been passed in those suits Defendant No.
They had, very half heartedly, set up a plea of limitation which was number seriously pressed.
per day so as to bring the amount awarded to approximately Rs.
1 did number appeal against the decree for possession by removal of the structures put up by the defendants and for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.
It appears that the defendant No.
It also rejected the pleas of waiver and estoppel.
2,000 for the companyrt fee paid by the plaintiff.
In the case before us, Bajrang Bali Engineering Company, defendant No.
But, these were number shown to be permanent structures.
The whole stand of the defendants appellants was lacking in bonafides.
Against this decree, the defendants 2 to 5 have companye up in appeal to this Court and companyfined their arguments to the pleas of waiver and estoppel and the bar of Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C. After having been taken through the pleadings and the relevant facts and the findings in the case, we find ourselves in companyplete agreement with the views of the trial companyrt and the High Court and that neither estoppel number waiver number Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C. companyld bar the plaintiffs suit.
1 taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff lived at companysiderable distance from the land in dispute, had started dumping scrap iron on the land.
The defendants had number shown that they had acquired any right in the land from an owner.
100/ per month.
The defendants appellants before us relied mainly on the alleged failure to object to structures made by them for the purpose of manufacturing buckets and automobile parts.
J. This is defendants appeal after certification under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution The plaintiffs respondent had brought a suit for recovery of possession after declaration of his title to a plot of land 50 bighas in area, including one bigha area occupied by the defendant appellants, who claimed sub tenancy rights and also set up the pleas of waiver and estoppel to prevent their eviction.
