Licencee cannot deny title or retain possession after termination; admitted permissive occupation justified decree for possession.

Persons entering premises with permission of the occupant hold only a licence and must vacate once that permission is withdrawn; continued occupation after termination is unlawful without an independent right. A licensee who entered permissively is also estopped from denying the licensor's title, and a later will or unregistered documents cannot defeat the admitted factual position or create a right to remain in possession. Where the defendants' pleadings and documents admit permissive entry and occupation, a possession decree may be granted on that basis, while mesne profits and damages may proceed separately.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the defendants were licencees in permissive possession and liable to vacate the suit property after termination of the licence; (ii) Whether the defendants were entitled to deny the plaintiffs' title or rely on a subsequent will to resist possession; (iii) Whether the suit for possession could be decreed on the basis of the admitted documents and pleadings.

Issue (i): Whether the defendants were licencees in permissive possession and liable to vacate the suit property after termination of the licence.

Analysis: The admitted pleadings showed that the defendants were inducted into the premises with the permission of the plaintiffs' father and occupied the property without payment. Such occupation fell within the concept of licence under Section 52 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882. Once the permission was withdrawn and the licensor died, the defendants had no independent right to continue in occupation. A licencee has only a personal privilege to use the property and cannot retain possession after termination of the licence.

Conclusion: The defendants were licencees in permissive possession, and their continued occupation after termination of the licence was unjustified.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendants were entitled to deny the plaintiffs' title or rely on a subsequent will to resist possession.

Analysis: Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 barred a person who entered through the licence of the person in possession from denying that person's title at the time the licence was granted. The defendants, having entered with permission, could not dispute the licensors' title. The alleged will in favour of defendant No.2 also did not assist the defendants because the record showed that the deceased Bhagat Ram's share devolved on his mother as a Class-I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The challenge based on unregistered documents and the decision in Suraj Lamp did not displace the admitted factual matrix or create a right in favour of the defendants.

Conclusion: The defendants were estopped from denying title, and the will did not confer any enforceable right on them.

Issue (iii): Whether the suit for possession could be decreed on the basis of the admitted documents and pleadings.

Analysis: The defendants' own documents and written statement admitted the foundational facts of permissive entry and occupation. In such circumstances, the Court was entitled to act under Order X Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the pleaded defence disclosed no sustainable right to remain in possession. The relief of possession was therefore capable of being granted, while the claim for mesne profits and damages was left for further proceedings.

Conclusion: The suit for possession was decreed, while the issue of mesne profits and damages was kept pending for further determination.

Final Conclusion: The defendants' possession was held to be permissive and without subsisting legal right, the challenge to title failed, and the plaintiffs obtained a decree for possession with consequential proceedings on mesne profits and damages to continue separately.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who enters immovable property with the permission of the person in possession is a licencee and is estopped from denying that person's title; after termination of the licence, such occupation cannot be lawfully continued without an independent right.

---