Licensee inducted for temporary use is estopped from challenging owner’s title to seek possession and mesne profits.

The Respondent (Plaintiff) filed a suit for possession and mesne profits claiming to be the absolute owner of "Tribhuvan Complex".

In 1986, the Plaintiff entered into a development agreement with M/s Growth Techno Projects Ltd. (GTPL) to construct eight blocks.

The Appellants (Defendants) were allotted Block No. 5, but were permitted temporary use of 2,500 sq. yards in Block No. 4 (the suit property) as licensees for nine months via a letter dated 17.03.1994, pending completion of Block 5.

The Appellants failed to vacate despite the expiry of the license and subsequent revocation notices sent between 1996 and 2005.

The Appellants contended that the Plaintiff lacked title, that they occupied the property as owners via GTPL, and that the suit was improperly valued.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff on 19.02.2020.

1. Whether the Plaintiff had a valid right, title, or interest in the suit property to maintain a suit for possession.

2. Whether the Appellants were licensees whose license had been validly revoked.

3. Whether the suit was bad for misjoinder/non-joinder of parties or improper valuation.

4. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 75/- per sq. foot from 1996 onwards.

The court applied Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding first appeals.

It relied on the principle of "better title" in possessory suits and the doctrine of Estoppel under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which prevents a licensee or tenant from denying the title of the person who inducted them into the property.

Regarding pleadings, the court applied Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC, holding that technical defects in verification do not defeat substantive rights.

For mesne profits, the court applied the law of limitation, restricting claims to three years prior to the institution of the suit.

The Court found that the Plaintiff established ownership through a Release Deed dated 08.06.1962.

The court dismissed the Appellants' challenge to the Plaintiff’s title, noting that the Appellants admitted in their written statement and evidence (DW-1, DW-5) that they were inducted into possession via the letter dated 17.03.1994.

Consequently, the Appellants were estopped from challenging the Plaintiff's title.

The court rejected the plea of misjoinder, clarifying that directors are not necessary parties when the company is sued.

On mesne profits, while the court accepted the rate of Rs. 75/- per sq. foot based on the unrebutted testimony of PW-1 and admissions regarding nearby rentals, it found a legal error in the Trial Court’s timeline.

Since the suit was filed in 2005, the Plaintiff could only claim arrears for three years prior to the filing (from September 2002) rather than from 1996.

The court modified the judgment to limit the recovery of mesne profits to the period starting from 01.09.2002 instead of 23.11.1996.

The punitive costs of Rs. 3,00,000/- and interest rates of 12% to 15% were sustained, and the appeal was partly allowed only to the extent of this temporal modification of damages.