JUDGMENT:- Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.: 1. This first appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for eviction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15th June, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship passed a decree for eviction and mesne profits in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. Being dissatisfied, the defendant No.1 has come up with the present appeal. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal may be summed up thus: The respondent No.1 filed a suit before the Original Side of this Court thereby praying for the following relief: a) “Decree directing defendant No.1 to deliver back peaceful and vacant possession of the said flat fully described in Annexure ‘A’ hereto the plaintiffs; b) Decree directing the defendant No.1 to submit a true and faithful account of the incomes earned by the defendant No.1 by utilizing the said flat and/or portion thereof and a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant No.1 for the amount which would be found to have been earned by the defendant No.1 utilizing the said flat and/or portion thereof; c) In the alternative, enquiry be held to ascertain the amounts earned by the defendant No.1 by utilizing the said flat and/or portion thereof and a decree by passed against the defendant No.1 and in favour of the plaintiffs for the amounts which may be found due and payable by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiffs on such enquiry; d) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.1, his servants, agents and assigns from in any way dealing with and/transferring and/or alternating and/or encumbering and/or creating and third party interest over and/or in respect of the said flat No.12B on the 21st floor of “Everest” No.46C, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta; e) Temporary Injunction; f) Receiver; g) Attachment; h) Costs; i) Further and other reliefs.” The case made out by the plaintiffs may be epitomized thus: 1. The plaintiff No.1 is the wife and the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of one Jatindra Narayan Basu, since deceased. 2. At all material times the said Jatindra Narayan Basu used to carry on business in Partnership with the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 under the name and style of Messrs Basu Mitra & Co. from premises No.8/2, Kiron Shankar Roy Road, Calcutta within the jurisdiction aforesaid. 2. At all material times the said Jatindra Narayan Basu used to carry on business in Partnership with the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 under the name and style of Messrs Basu Mitra & Co. from premises No.8/2, Kiron Shankar Roy Road, Calcutta within the jurisdiction aforesaid. The said Partnership firm at all material times used to carry on business, interalia, as building contractor. 3. The defendant No.1 is the Administrator of a multistoried building at premises No.46C, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta. The said Multistoried building at Premises No.46C, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta is known as “Everest House” (hereinafter referred to as the “said premises”). The defendant No.1 was appointed as such Administrator by an order dated 25th August, 1980 passed in Suit No.343 of 1979 (Superintendence Company of India (Pvt.) Ltd-vs- Western Building Corporation & Ors.). 4. By a deed of conveyance dated 17th May, 1965, the defendant No.2, one Western Building Corporation and/or its partners, the defendant No.2 being one of them, purchased from Hindustan Building Society Limited all that piece or parcel of revenue free land being premises No.46C, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta within the jurisdiction aforesaid (hereinafter referred as the “said property”). 5. After purchase of the said property, as aforesaid, the defendant No.2 one Western Building Corporation and/or its partners the defendant No.2 being one of them, decided to develop the said property by constructing a multi-storied building thereon. 6. For the purpose of constructing the said multi-storied building, the defendant No.2 one Western Building Corporation and/or its partners the defendant No.2 being one of them, entered into a contract with the said contractors. 7. Pursuant to the said agreement, the said contractors started constructing the said multi-storied building at the said property. The said multi-storied building was subsequently named as “Everest House”. 8. 7. Pursuant to the said agreement, the said contractors started constructing the said multi-storied building at the said property. The said multi-storied building was subsequently named as “Everest House”. 8. During the last phase of construction of the said premises, an agreement was entered into between the partners of the said contractors on the one hand and the defendant No.2 one Western Building Corporation and/or its partners the defendant No.2 being one of them on the other when it was agreed that the partners of the said contractors shall purchase from the defendant No.2 one Western Building Corporation and/or its partners the defendant No.2 being one of them, one flat being Flat No.”B” on the 21st floor of the said premises including the terrace bounded by the parapet wall is known and numbered as Flat No.21B (hereinafter for the sake of the convenience referred to as the said flat) for the agreed consideration of Rs.1,55,000/- Full particulars of the said flat are given in a schedule and were delineated in a plan annexed to the plaint being marked with the letters “A” and “B” respectively. 9. After such agreement was entered into, the said Jatindra Narayan Basu, since deceased, nominated his wife Smt. Suprova Basu, being the plaintiff No.1 above named in his place and stead to purchase his share of the said flat. 10. The plaintiff No.1 by a cheque dated 29th December, 1973 drawn on Grindlays Bank of No.1/425, Gariahat Road (South), Calcutta paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the defendant No.2, said Western Building Corporation, in consideration and/or part payment of the agreed consideration for purchasing the said flat. 11. On 14th January, 1974 an agreement in writing was entered into between the defendant No.2, said Western Building Corporation on the one hand and the plaintiffs on the other recording the terms and conditions of sale of the said flat by the defendant No.2 said Western Building Corporation and/or its partners the defendant No.2 being one of them, to the plaintiffs. 12. On completion of construction of the said premises and after adjusting the payments made by the defendant No.2 one Western Building Corporation to the said contractors towards their charges for constructing the said premises a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-remained due and payable by the defendant No.2 one Western Building Corporation to the said contractors. 12. On completion of construction of the said premises and after adjusting the payments made by the defendant No.2 one Western Building Corporation to the said contractors towards their charges for constructing the said premises a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-remained due and payable by the defendant No.2 one Western Building Corporation to the said contractors. At that juncture the defendant No.2 Western Building Corporation and proposed to adjust the said sum of Rs.1,50,000/- which remained due and payable by them to the said contractors against the amounts payable by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.2 Western Building Corporation towards the balance consideration money of the said flat. 13. On being so approached, the partners of the said contractors agreed to such proposal so given by the defendant No.2 Western Building Corporation. The partners of the said contractors recorded such agreement by a letter dated 15th April. 14. On the basis of such agreement, the defendant No.2 Western Building Corporation on 28th May, 1980 issued a receipt in favour of the plaintiffs for the said sum of Rs.1,50,000/- thereby acknowledging receipt and/or adjustment t of the balance sum of Rs.1,50,000/- which was payable by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.2 under the said agreement dated 14th January, 1974. 15. On or about 15th August, 1980, the possession of the said flat was handed over to the plaintiffs by the defendant No.2. 16. The partners of the said contractors were duly assessed in respect of the said flat by the Income Tax Authorities for the financial year 1979-80. 17. 15. On or about 15th August, 1980, the possession of the said flat was handed over to the plaintiffs by the defendant No.2. 16. The partners of the said contractors were duly assessed in respect of the said flat by the Income Tax Authorities for the financial year 1979-80. 17. In the meantime and on or about 7th May, 1979, the Superintendence Company of India (Private) Limited, being one of the flat owners of the said premises instituted a suit in the Original Side of this Court against the defendant No.2 Western Building Corporation above named and others being Suit No.343 of 1979 claiming, inter-alia the following relief: “a) Leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure to institute this on behalf of and for the benefit of all persons like the plaintiffs who are occupying the different portions of the said “Everest Building” at NO.46C, J.L. Nehru Road, Calcutta; b) The Agreement dated 22nd December 1971 as varied modified in October, 1977 as stated in paragraph 15 hereof be specifically performed and carried into execution by the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.1 to 9; c) Decree directing the defendant firm to execute a proper conveyance in respect of the office being office No.11G on the 11th Floor of Everest Building, No. 46C Jawarharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta to and in favour of the plaintiffs; d) If necessary liberty to the plaintiffs to prepare the necessary conveyance and the same be ordered to be settled by the Registrar, Original Side, or such other officer as to this Hon’ble Court be appear fit and proper with the facts and circumstances of the case; e) If the defendant firm neglect or refuse or default in executing the necessary conveyance and causing the same to be registered in favour of the plaintiffs, the Registrar, Original Side, be ordered and directed to execute and register such conveyance for and on behalf of the defendant firm; f) Perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant Nos.2 to 9 their servants or agents or employees or assigns of any of them from transferring conveying or vesting any right, title or interest in the said office No.11C, in premises No.46C Jawarharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta to and in favour of the defendant No.10; g) Mandatory injunction directing the defendant firm to make payment forthwith to the Corporation of Calcutta of all arrears of Corporation rates and taxes relating to the said building; h) Accounts of the said sum of Rs. (sic) paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant firm; i) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.10 from taking any transfer in respect of the said office premises sold to the plaintiffs in its own favour from the defendant Nos.1 to 9; j) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and each of them from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the essential services and utilities and use of common areas in the building by the plaintiffs its servants agents employees assigns and licencees; k) Receiver; l) Injunction; m) Attachment; n) Costs; o) Further and other reliefs.” 18. The said Suit No.343 of 1979 is still pending. Though the respondent No.2 Western Building Corporation received full payment from the flat owners before possession thereof was handed over by the respondent No.2 Western Building Corporation to such flat owners, yet, the respondent No.2 Western Building Corporation and/or its partners, the defendant No.2 being one of them has not yet executed the respective deeds of conveyance in favour of the respective flat owners including the plaintiffs. 19. In the said suit No.343 of 1979, an order was passed on 25th August, 1980 by His Lordship the Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.K. Basu (As His Lordship then was), inter-alia, appointing the defendant No.1 abovenamed as the Administrator for the proper administration of the affairs of the said premises. 20. As far as the plaintiffs are aware of, on 9th September, 1980 a list of owners of different flats and/or portions of the said premises was submitted before this Hon’ble Court by the defendant No.2 Western Building Corporation in terms of the said order dated 25th August, 1980. The names of the plaintiffs abovenamed appear against serial No.145 of the said list so submitted by the defendant No.2 Western Building Corporation in this Hon’ble Court. 21. After the appointment of the Administrator over the said premises as aforesaid, the plaintiffs by a letter dated 10th September, 1980, interalia, requested the defendant No.1 being the Administrator to send to the plaintiffs the current maintenance bills in respect of the said flat to the plaintiffs at the address given therein. Such request was made by the plaintiffs inspite of the fact that the said flat and/or space covered by the said flat at all material times was kept under lock and key of the plaintiffs. 22. Such request was made by the plaintiffs inspite of the fact that the said flat and/or space covered by the said flat at all material times was kept under lock and key of the plaintiffs. 22. The defendant No.1 in spite of due receipt of the said letter dated 10th September, 1980 neither gave any reply thereto, nor did send the current maintenance bills to the plaintiffs. 23. On 31st January, 1983 the plaintiffs made an application with the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in its prescribed form for mutation of the names of the plaintiffs in the records of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation as the owners of the said flat being Flat No.21B on the 21st floor of the said premises. 24. With a view to properly utilize the said flat, the plaintiffs from time to time, inter-alia, requested the defendant No.1 to give consent to the plaintiffs to make application with the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited (now known as CESC Ltd.) for taking electric connection in the said flat. Inspite of such requests so made by the plaintiffs, the defendant No.1 did not permit to make such application for installation of the electric line. The defendant No.1 also did not give water connection to the said flat of the plaintiffs. 25. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs by a letter dated 9th May, 1983 informed the defendant No.1 that because of his conduct the plaintiffs were being deprived of the use and enjoyment of the said flat and that they were further suffering severe pecuniary loss and damages. By the said letter, the plaintiffs also informed the defendant No.1 that unless the plaintiffs received a favourable reply, the plaintiffs would be compelled to move the Court. 26. The defendant No.1 by his letter dated 14th May, 1983 purported to allege that the construction of the said premises being the said flat was allegedly an unauthorized construction and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation was being requested to let him know about the fate of the structure. By the said letter the defendant No.1 further alleged that no sale agreement in respect of the said flat was handed over to him and the copy of receipt of payment sent by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.1 did not show any real payment made by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.2 Western Building Corporation. 27. By the said letter the defendant No.1 further alleged that no sale agreement in respect of the said flat was handed over to him and the copy of receipt of payment sent by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.1 did not show any real payment made by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.2 Western Building Corporation. 27. The defendant No.1 being the Administrator appointed by this Hon’ble Court acted totally beyond the jurisdiction and power vested in him by this Hon’ble Court by his order of appointment dated 25th August, 1980. 28. The defendant No.1 by his said letter dated 14th May, 1983 wrongfully alleged that the adjustments mentioned in the receipt issued by the defendant NO.2 in favour of the plaintiffs could not be verified. As far as the plaintiffs are aware of, the defendant No.1 at the material times was and still is in possession of the relevant books of accounts and all other relevant papers and documents of the defendant No.2 Western Building Corporation from which the defendant No.1 could have easily verified the payment made by the plaintiffs either directly or by way of adjustments against the dues of the respondent No.2 Western Building Corporation to the said contractors. The defendant No.1 wrongfully and mischievously alleged that the construction covering the said flat was unauthorized construction. 29. As the plaintiffs did not receive any intimation from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation regarding the application made by the plaintiffs for mutation of the said premises in the names of the plaintiffs as owners thereof, the plaintiffs in early 1986 made enquiries, when it transpired that the application for mutation made by the plaintiffs with the Calcutta Municipal Corporation on 31st January, 1983 was not traceable. 30. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs on 14th May, 1986 made another application with the Calcutta Municipal Corporation for mutation of the said flat in the names of the plaintiffs forwarding therewith copies of all the relevant papers and documents in respect of the claims made by the plaintiffs as owner of the said flat. 31. 30. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs on 14th May, 1986 made another application with the Calcutta Municipal Corporation for mutation of the said flat in the names of the plaintiffs forwarding therewith copies of all the relevant papers and documents in respect of the claims made by the plaintiffs as owner of the said flat. 31. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation either after the receipt of the first application for mutation made by the plaintiffs on 31st January, 1983 or after the receipt of the subsequent application made by the plaintiffs on 14th May, 1986 never informed the plaintiffs that the said flat being flat No.21B, in the said premises was an unauthorized construction as alleged by the defendant No.1. Such allegation was made by the defendant No.1 with ulterior motive. 32. As the plaintiffs did not receive any intimation from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in respect of said application so made by the plaintiffs for mutation on 14th May, 1986, the plaintiff No.2 applied to C.M.C. afresh on 12th January, 1993 with all relevant ownership documents for firm execution of mutation favouring the plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 regarding the said flat 21B in Everest House and from time to time visited the office of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and particularly its Assessment Department when the officers concerned of the said department assured plaintiff No.2 that the application so made by the plaintiffs was being processed by them and they would intimate the plaintiffs the fate of such application in due course. 33. In August, 1994 the plaintiff No.2 again visited the office of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation when the officers of the Assessment Department of the said Calcutta Municipal Corporation orally communicated to the plaintiff No.2 that the applications made by the plaintiffs earlier for mutation of the said flat in their names were missing from their concerned file. On being so informed, the plaintiff No.2 approached the Special Officer on Duty in the Assessment Department of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and informed him about such application so made by the plaintiffs. The Special Officer of Duty in turn requested the plaintiff No.2 to approach the appointed Inspector. The said Inspector in turn advised the plaintiff No.2 to make a fresh application forwarding therewith copies of all the relevant papers and documents to expedite mutation of the said flat in the names of the plaintiffs. 34. The Special Officer of Duty in turn requested the plaintiff No.2 to approach the appointed Inspector. The said Inspector in turn advised the plaintiff No.2 to make a fresh application forwarding therewith copies of all the relevant papers and documents to expedite mutation of the said flat in the names of the plaintiffs. 34. On being so advised the plaintiffs on 25th August, 1994 made a fresh application with the Calcutta Municipal Corporation for mutation of the said flat in the names of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs along with the said application duly forwarded copies of all the relevant papers and documents in support of the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the said flat 21B. 35. In September, 1994 the plaintiff No.2 visited the said premises to ascertain the condition of the said flat as the said flat at all material times was lying under lock and key. On such visit, the plaintiff No.2 was surprised to find that the lock put by the plaintiffs in the said flat as aforesaid was broken open and the defendant No.1 has established his office in the said flat. The plaintiff No.2 was surprised to find that the defendant No.1 has inducted one Asian Computers Consultancy Services Private Limited in a portion of the said flat and the said company is occupying about an area of 300 sq. ft. in the said flat. Finding such unlawful steps taken by the defendant No.1, the plaintiff No. 2 tried to contact the defendant No.1, but the defendant No. 1 blatantly refused even to talk to the plaintiff No.2 36. Under the circumstances the plaintiff No.2 contacted such of the other flat owners in the said premises who informed the plaintiff No.2 that the defendant No.1 has alleged before this Hon’ble Court in an affidavit affirmed by him that the said flat was sold to the said contractors being the contractors who constructed the said premises against their outstanding bills and upon enquiry the contractors failed to produce the relevant necessary agreement for sale or any other evidence in respect thereof and in view of the matter the defendant No.1 kept the said flat and established his office in the said flat. The plaintiff No.2, however, could not ascertain the particulars of the said affidavit so affirmed by the defendant No.1 37. The plaintiff No.2, however, could not ascertain the particulars of the said affidavit so affirmed by the defendant No.1 37. The plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 at all material times were the partners of the said contractors. The defendant No.1 at no point of time did call upon the contractors either to produce any document or any evidence in support of their purchase of the said flat. In any event, the plaintiffs state that the defendant No.1 at all material times was and still is aware of the fact that the plaintiffs are the real owners of the said flat. The plaintiffs as early as on 10th September, 1980 informed the respondent No.1 that the plaintiffs were the owners of the said flat and the plaintiffs requested the defendant No.1 to raise the current maintenance bills in respect of the said flat on the plaintiffs. Along with the said letter the plaintiffs duly forwarded to the defendant No.1 copies of the relevant documents. The plaintiffs state that the defendant No.1 never challenged the correctness or existence of the documents, copies whereof were forwarded by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.1 38. Though the defendant No.1 was aware that the plaintiffs are the owners and/or are claiming to be the owners of the said flat, yet the defendant No.1 never informed the plaintiffs about his intention to take possession of the said flat by breaking open the pad-lock of the plaintiffs which were done by the defendant No.1 wrongfully, illegally and surreptitiously. The defendant No.1 neither in his letters nor otherwise informed the plaintiffs about their possession of the said flat taken by him wrongfully, illegally and surreptitiously in abuse of the power vested in him by this Hon’ble Court. 39. The defendant No.1 being Administrator appointed by this Hon’ble Court is bound to act in terms of his order of appointment. The said order of appointment of Administrator did not empower the Administrator to break open any lock put by any flat owner in his flat. The said order neither did authorize the defendant No.1 being the Administrator to take wrongful possession of any flat in the said premises. 40. The defendant No.1 acted wrongfully and illegally in taking possession of the said flat belonging to the plaintiffs. The defendant No.1 had no power or authority to take possession of the said flat. The said order neither did authorize the defendant No.1 being the Administrator to take wrongful possession of any flat in the said premises. 40. The defendant No.1 acted wrongfully and illegally in taking possession of the said flat belonging to the plaintiffs. The defendant No.1 had no power or authority to take possession of the said flat. The defendant No.1 never was nor is entitled to act contrary to or beyond the scope of his appointment and as a creature of the order of this Hon’ble Court at all material times was and still is bound to act in terms of his order of appointment and as per the law. 41. In spite of the efforts, the plaintiffs could not ascertain the actual date on which the defendant No.1 took possession of the said flat. In any event, from the correspondent exchanged between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1, it would be evident that the defendant No.1 took wrongful and illegal possession of the said flat sometimes after 14th May, 1983. Without prejudice to the aforesaid and on the contrary strongly relying thereon, the plaintiffs further state that the defendant No.1 entered into possession of the said flat as the Administrator appointed over the said premises. Under the circumstances, the possession of said flat by the defendant No.1 is possession of the same by this Hon’ble Court for the benefit of the real owners of the said flat in the still further alternative, the plaintiffs state that the defendant No.1 being the Administrator appointed by this Hon’ble Court has taken possession of the said flat as the trustee for the benefit and for protection of the interest of the owners of the said flat. 42. The defendant No.1 has no right whatsoever to remain in possession of the said flat. The said Asian Computers Consultancy Services Private Limited also has no right or interest to remain in possession or occupation of any portion of the said flat. The defendant No.1 being an officer of this Hon’ble Court is bound and obliged to deliver back peaceful and vacant possession of the said flat to the plaintiffs. 43. The defendant No.1 has allowed the said Asian Computers Consultancy Services Private Limited to occupy a portion of the said flat measuring about 300 sq. ft. for valuable consideration. The defendant No.1 being an officer of this Hon’ble Court is bound and obliged to deliver back peaceful and vacant possession of the said flat to the plaintiffs. 43. The defendant No.1 has allowed the said Asian Computers Consultancy Services Private Limited to occupy a portion of the said flat measuring about 300 sq. ft. for valuable consideration. The defendant No.1 is not entitled to make any gain or any nature whatsoever by utilizing the said flat of the plaintiffs or any portion thereof. Any income earned by the defendant No.1 by utilizing the said flat or any portion thereof has necessarily been earned by the defendant No.1 acting as a trustee on behalf of the plaintiffs. Under the circumstances, the defendant No.1 is bound to and should be directed to furnish accounts to the plaintiffs the incomes earned by the defendant No.1 by utilizing the said flat and the defendant No.1 should be directed to reimburse the plaintiffs of the incomes so derived and/or earned by the defendant No.1 by utilizing the said flat of the plaintiffs along with interest thereon. In the alternative, an enquiry should be held to ascertain the income earned by the defendant No.1 by utilizing the said flat and a decree should be passed in favour of the plaintiffs for the amount which would be found on such enquiry with interest thereon. 44. The defendant No.1 has been invading or threatening to invade the plaintiffs’ right to or enjoyment of the property and there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damages caused or likely to be caused by the invasion and the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief. Under the circumstances, a perpetual injunction as prayed for is necessary. Such an injunction is also necessary to prevent multiplicity of judicial proceedings. 45. In view of the statements made hereinabove, no part of the plaintiffs’ claim is barred by the laws of limitation. 46. Western Building Corporation the original defendant No.2 was a partnership firm of whom the defendant No.2 was one of the partners. The said Western Building Corporation the original defendant No.2 have been dissolved. The defendant No.2 was a partner of the said Western Building Corporation at the relevant time of the transactions between the plaintiffs and the said Western Building Corporation. The said Western Building Corporation the original defendant No.2 have been dissolved. The defendant No.2 was a partner of the said Western Building Corporation at the relevant time of the transactions between the plaintiffs and the said Western Building Corporation. The presence of the profoma defendant herein is absolutely essential/necessary for the proper Adjudication/disposal of this suit as proof of the title of the plaintiff No.1 of the said flat can only be ascertained by the Western Building Corporation or any one of its erstwhile partners, who was a partner at time of the transactions between the plaintiff No.1 and the said Western Building Corporation. The proforma defendant No.2 in the event of the Western Building Corporation having been dissolved is a necessary party in this suit, being one of the erstwhile partners of the said firm. The defendant No.2 carries on his business at No.1 & 2, Little Russel Street, Calcutta-700071 within the aforesaid jurisdiction. 46. No relief has been claimed in the above suit against the pro-forma defendant No.2. The proforma defendant No.2 has been added as a party as the disputes between the parties can be effectively adjudicated and decided in its totality in his very presence. He as an erstwhile partner of the said Western Building Corporation; executed and attested all relevant documents, in-person. The suit was contested by the defendant No.1 by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint and the defence of the defendant No. 1 may be summarized thus: (i) The suit is not maintainable being filed with ulterior motives and is mala fide, vexatious, harassing and hence, liable to be dismissed. (ii) The plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendant no. 1 and the plaint discloses none. (iii) The plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in Flat No.21B, in Everest Building. In any event, the plaintiffs have no subsisting right therein. By reason of the premises, the plaintiffs have no manner of right to institute the instant suit. The plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute the instant suit. (iv) The defendant No.1 was appointed as the Administrator of premises No.46C, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta by an order dated August 25, 1980 passed in Suit No.343 of 1979 in the facts and the circumstances referred to in the plaint filed therein. The defendant no.1 has discharged all duties in terms of the said order. (iv) The defendant No.1 was appointed as the Administrator of premises No.46C, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta by an order dated August 25, 1980 passed in Suit No.343 of 1979 in the facts and the circumstances referred to in the plaint filed therein. The defendant no.1 has discharged all duties in terms of the said order. (v) It was denied that Messrs Bose Mitra & Co., entered into any contract to develop the building as alleged. To the best of the knowledge of the defendant no. 1, the defendant No.2 entered into an agreement with Messrs J.N. Basu to develop the said Premises on November 29, 1972 by constructing 8 stories on the then existing 13 stories i.e. up to the 20th floor. (vi) The defendant no. 1 denied that any agreement was or could have been entered into with M/s. Basu Mitra & Co., as alleged. The twenty first floor and particularly flat No.21B of the building was never sanctioned by the Municipal authorities and as such it was denied that any agreement could have been made for sale of the same in 1972 for Rs.1,55,000/- or any sum as alleged or at all. Such alleged agreement is bogus, sham and fraudulent and is denied and disputed. (vii) It was denied that the said J.N. Basu, since deceased, could have nominated any one to purchase any flat as alleged or at all. In any event, nominees cannot institute the instant suit. (viii) It was denied that the plaintiffs paid Rs.5,000/- or that such alleged payment could be in consideration or in part payment for purchase and or booking of any flat in Everest Building as alleged or at all. (ix) The said purported agreement dated January 14, 1974 relied on by the plaintiffs is an apparent forgery and contains interpolations. The agreement dated January 14, 1974 relates to the Southern portion on the ground floor of the premises which was sanctioned as an entrance. The same was later enclosed by raising a wall by the defendant No.2 and sold to Mrs. Rehana Khatoon under an agreement dated May 22, 1979. It appears that the same has been interpolated to “create” an agreement for sale unstamped and/or improperly stamped and cannot be relied on. The said document is thus inadmissible in evidence, liable be the impounded and cannot be relied upon. Rehana Khatoon under an agreement dated May 22, 1979. It appears that the same has been interpolated to “create” an agreement for sale unstamped and/or improperly stamped and cannot be relied on. The said document is thus inadmissible in evidence, liable be the impounded and cannot be relied upon. (x) It was denied that Rs.1.50 lac was or could have remained payable by the defendant No.2 to M/s Basu Mitra as alleged or that there was any question of the partners of the defendant No.2 approaching them to adjust the same against any amount allegedly payable by the plaintiffs as alleged or at all. It was denied that there was any agreement as alleged or that the same is or could be recorded in any latter as alleged or at all. The said alleged letter, if any is bogus, fabricated as an after thought and cannot be relied on. The same has been brought into existence to create false evidence. (xi) The alleged receipt is bogus, sham fabricated and cannot be relied on. It was denied that any adjustment or acknowledgement was or could have been made or that any amount was payable by the plaintiffs as alleged. The alleged due, if any the defendant No.2 could have been to M/s. J.N. Basu, the contractor of the said floors and not M/s. Basu Mitra, as alleged. (xii) It was denied that the possession of the flat was or could have been handed over to the plaintiffs as alleged. At the time the defendant no.1 took over the building in September, 1980, the front portion of the said Flat No.21B, (which was un-sanctioned and illegal) was incomplete, unfinished, vacant and not in the possession of any one. It had a looking roof, was uninhabitable and in a state of dis-use. (xiii) It was denied that the said M/s. Basu Mitra or its partners could have been assessed by the Income Tax authorities in respect of the said flat as alleged. The plaintiffs are put to the strictest proof of any valid assessment in respect of the said flat. (xiv) The date of handing over is shown as May 25, 1980. The said purported entries are false, fictitious and manipulated at the instance of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 and are denied and disputed. The plaintiffs are put to the strictest proof of any valid assessment in respect of the said flat. (xiv) The date of handing over is shown as May 25, 1980. The said purported entries are false, fictitious and manipulated at the instance of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 and are denied and disputed. (xv) The said flat was not in the possession of the plaintiffs and as such no bill was issued to them. It was denied that any letter or request was made by the plaintiffs or received by this defendant as alleged or at all. It was denied that the said flat was or could be under the lock of the plaintiffs as alleged or at all. (xvi) It was denied that any application was or could have been made to the Municipal Corporation as alleged. The entire building was assessed by the Corporation as one unit and having regard to the huge outstanding, there was no question of any mutation being carried out as alleged or at all. In any event, having regard to the orders of this Hon’ble Court of which the plaintiffs were well aware, they were not entitled to make any application to the Municipal authorities as alleged or at all. (xvii) Everest Building had a high tension connection since 1968 and as such there was no question of applying directly to C.E.S.S. for any connection. If the plaintiffs were in fact the contractors in relation to the said building as alleged may would and should have known of the aforesaid. Similarly, there was no question of applying for any water connection as alleged. (xviii) The plaintiffs were not in possession of any area except for a temporary storeroom in the ground floor of the building which has since been vacated by them. The Administrator’s office has been situate in the said flat 21B since 1985 after getting the same repaired, refurbished and after having leaking roof repaired, floors land, walls plastered and installation of doors and windows. Though the same was unauthorized, at the time of assessment of final valuation from 1991, the said flat was recorded in the books of the Corporation. It was denied that the books reflect any payment or adjustments as alleged or at all. It was denied and disputed that all relevant books are with this defendant as alleged or at all. Though the same was unauthorized, at the time of assessment of final valuation from 1991, the said flat was recorded in the books of the Corporation. It was denied that the books reflect any payment or adjustments as alleged or at all. It was denied and disputed that all relevant books are with this defendant as alleged or at all. It was denied that any wrongful and/or mischievous allegation has been made as alleged or at all. (xix) The defendant no.1 has come to learn that the Municipal Corporation has come to a finding that the plaintiffs will not be owner of the said flat and as such, has not allowed the mutation. In any event, having regard to the orders of this Hon’ble Court, the plaintiffs had no manner of right whatsoever to make any application for mutation of any portion of Everest Building with the Municipal Authorities and in any event, could not have done so without the prior sanction of the Administrator. The plaintiffs are put to the strict proof of filing such alleged applications. Having regard to the appointment of the Administrator there was no question of informing the plaintiffs about the said construction being unauthorized as alleged at all. It was denied that any visit was made to the Special Officer or any advice could have been made by him as alleged at all. Such allegations are false and made with a view to explain the delay in lodging the alleged claim of the plaintiffs. It was denied that there was any question of any mutation in 1986/93 of the plaintiffs as alleged. (xx) 1000 square feet of space being Flat No.21A of Everest Building was purchased by Mrs. Pushpa Rani Sethi under an agreement dated April 13, 1973. The said Pushpa Rani Sethi was in possession of the said flat at the time when the defendant no.1 took over as the Administrator of Everest Building. At the time, Flat No.21A was also in the unusable condition and incomplete. No power and water connection has been obtained as part of it was unauthorized. In connection with the aforesaid, the said Pushpa Rani Sethi instituted proceedings in this Hon’ble Court which were ultimately settled by an Order dated November 10, 1989 and the said flat was thereafter renovated. No power and water connection has been obtained as part of it was unauthorized. In connection with the aforesaid, the said Pushpa Rani Sethi instituted proceedings in this Hon’ble Court which were ultimately settled by an Order dated November 10, 1989 and the said flat was thereafter renovated. The said Pushpa Rani Sethi has since inducted the said Asian Computer at a tenant in respect of the said flat. (xxi) It was denied that the constructors of the building were Mr. Basu Mitra as alleged or that any documents were forwarded to this defendant as alleged or at all. It was denied that the plaintiffs were or could be owners of the flat or that the defendant no.1 could have been aware of the same as alleged or at all. It was denied that the defendant no.1 was informed of the aforesaid or requested to raise maintenance bills in their name as alleged. It was denied that any letter or document was forwarded to the defendant no.1 as alleged or at all. (xxii) There was no provision for any office for an Administrator of the building. In the circumstances, the defendant no.1 was initially compelled to function from the corridor on the 14th floor. Subsequently at 20 F for 3 years and after repairs could be carried out to the said flat No.21B, on funds being available, this defendant got the said flat repaired floors laid, walls plastered, roof repaired and the doors and windows fitted and thereafter occupied 21B flat to use the same as the Administrator’s office. (xxiii) It was denied that there was any correspondence between the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 or that he took possession of the flat wrongfully or illegally. It was denied that the plaintiffs are the owners of the said flat as alleged. The defendant no.1 has reasons to believe that the defendant No.2 having regard to the illegal nature of the said flat purported to put the plaintiffs’ name in the list submitted to this Hon’ble Court with mala fide and ulterior motives and subject, though the same had not been sold as it was not completed before the possession by the Administrator. (xxiv) The area occupied by the M/s. Asian Computer, on the 21st floor of Everest Building belongs to Mrs. Pushpa Rani Sethi who inducted the said Asian Computer as her tenant. (xxiv) The area occupied by the M/s. Asian Computer, on the 21st floor of Everest Building belongs to Mrs. Pushpa Rani Sethi who inducted the said Asian Computer as her tenant. It was denied that the defendant no.1 has allowed Asian Computer Private Limited to occupy the said flat as alleged or obtained any consideration or made any gain as alleged. It was denied that any income has been made or utilized by the defendant no.1 as alleged. It was denied that the plaintiffs have any right, title or interest in that flat. The defendant no.1 has used the said unauthorized portion for the purpose of his office and not otherwise. The proforma defendant No.2 filed written statement thereby virtually supporting the claim of the plaintiffs and his defence may be summed up thus: a. Save that there was a firm of Building Contractors by the name of Messrs Basu Mitra & Co. of which one Jatindra Narayan Basu, since deceased, and the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 were the partners, the defendant no.2 did not have any knowledge with regard to the rest of the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the plaint nor did the said defendant make any admission with regard thereto. A photocopy of the typed copy of draft of the contracted Construction Agreement was annexed to the written statements and marked with Letter ‘R-1’. b. Statements contained in paragraphs 3 to 7 of the plaint are correct. c. Save that sometimes prior to 29th December, 1973 M/s. Western Building Corporation being a Partnership Firm of which the defendant No.2 was a partner had entered into a contract with the said Firm of Contractors whereby and whereunder M/s Western Building Corporation agreed to sell to the said Firm of Contractors Flat No.21B on the 21st Floor of the Building at No.46C Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata and the said Firm of Contractors agreed to purchase the said Flat at the agreed consideration of Rs.1,55,000/- and save that the said Flat No.21B included the terrace on the 21st floor of the said premises as has been described in the schedule being Annexure ‘A’ to the plaint and as delineated in the plan being Annexure “B” to the plaint, the defendant No.2 did not make any admission with regard to the rest of the allegation contained in paragraph 8 of the plaint. d. Statements contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the plaint are correct. The defendant no.2 as a partner of M/s. Western Building Corporation received a sum of Rs.5000/-from the intending purchaser as and by way of consideration money and the said sum was thereafter, duly appropriated by M/s. Western Building Corporation for its own benefit. e. With reference to paragraph 11 of the plaint, the defendant no.2 admitted that pursuant to the contract as mentioned hereinabove and particularly in paragraph 4 hereof, the said M/s. Western Building Corporation had entered into an Agreement in writing with the plaintiffs recording the Terms and Conditions for sale of the said Flat No.21B to the plaintiffs. The defendant no.2 executed the said Agreement for and on behalf of M/s. Western Building Corporation as a partner thereof. f. Statements contained in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the plaint are correct. g. Save what would appear from the receipt dated 25th May, 1980 issued by the said M/s. Western Building Corporation which was signed by the defendant no.2 as a partner thereof and save that M/s. Western Building Corporation adjusted the said sum of Rs.1,50,000/- which was payable by it to the said Firm of Contractor against the amount receivable by the said M/s. Western Building Corporation from the plaintiffs towards the balance consideration money as per the Agreement as aforesaid and a photo copy of the typed copy of M/s. Basu-Mitra & Co.’s letter dated 15th April, 1980 was annexed to the written statement and save that the possession of the Flat No.21B in the said premises NO.46C, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata was handed over by M/s. Western Building Corporation to the plaintiffs on or about 15th August, 1980 and a photocopy of the typed copy of the plaintiffs’ letter was annexed to the written statement, the defendant no.2 did not make any admission with regard to the rest of the allegations contained in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the plaint. h. Save what are matters of record and save what have been stated hereinabove and save that the said M/s. Western Building Corporation was unable to execute any Deed of Conveyance in favour of any of the Flat owners in consequent to the appointment of an Administrator over the said premises by this Hon’ble Court, the defendant no.2 did not have any knowledge with regard to the rest of the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the plaint. i. With reference to paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Plaint the Defendant no.2 admitted that upon completion of the said building and making over possession of the various flats/units apartments and constructed spaces in the said New Building constructed at the said premises, the office owners formed themselves into an Association known as Everest Owners Association (hereinafter referred to as the said ASSOCIATION) for the purpose of maintenance of the common parts and portions and for rendition of the common services. The said Association was formed sometime in the year 1980 and upon taking over management of the said building by a letter dated 8/9th May, 1980 addressed to all the Owners/Occupiers of the said Building the Defendant no.2 duly communicated regarding formation of the said Association and also regarding payment of the maintenance charges to be paid by each of the owners and/or occupiers. A copy of the said letter has been referred to in the Affidavit in opposition as annexure ‘D’ affirmed by the Defendant no.2 on 1st June, 1980 and filed in Suit No.343 of 1979 a photocopy of the typed copy of annexure ‘D’ was annexed to the written statement. Consequently upon taking over of the management of the common parts and portions and rendition of the common services the said Western Building Corporation and/or the Defendant no.2 ceased to have any right or claim in respect of the management of the said Building situated at 46C, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, commonly know as EVEREST HOUSE. j. It was, however, denied that the defendant No.1 by any alleged letter dated 14th May, 1983 could allege that the construction of the said premises being Flat No.21B was an unauthorized construction or any information regarding the said Flat could be sought for by the defendant No.1 from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation regarding the said Flat as alleged or at all. It is further denied that the defendant No.1 by any alleged letter could allege that any receipt issued by the said M/s. Western Building Corporation in favour of the plaintiffs did not show any real payment made by the plaintiffs to Western Building Corporation as alleged. k. It was further denied that the defendant No.1 by any alleged letter dated 14th May, 1983 could allege that the adjustments mentioned in the receipt issued by M/s. Western Building Corporation in favour of the plaintiffs could not be verified as alleged. The defendant No.1 was and still is in possession of the relevant Books of Accounts and all other relevant papers and documents of M/s. Western Building Corporation. It was further denied that the defendant No.1 could allege that the construction covering the said Flat No.21B was unauthorized construction as alleged. l. It was denied that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation could allege that the said Flat No.21B in the said Everest Building was an unauthorized construction as alleged. m. It was further denied that the defendant No.1 had any authority to keep any Flat or establish his Office in any Flat and particularly in the said Flat No.21B as alleged or at all. n. The defendant no.2 further asserted that in absence of specific order from this Hon’ble Court the Administrator appointed by this Hon’ble Court never had any authority to induct any person in the said Flat No.21B at the said premises without the consent and concurrence of the plaintiffs. o. The dispute was entirely between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 and the defendant no.2 and/or the said Western Building Corporation had nothing to do with the disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 filed additional written statement thereby reiterating that defence earlier taken and further contended that in the absence of the Western Building Corporation, the suit was not maintainable and that M. S. Bharat was not a representative of the Western Building Corporation and M. S. Bharat was not a necessary party to the proceedings. The genuineness of the agreement for sale between the Western Building Corporation and the plaintiffs was also disputed. The genuineness of the agreement for sale between the Western Building Corporation and the plaintiffs was also disputed. At the time of hearing of the suit, the plaintiff No.2 alone gave evidence in support of the plaint case while the defendant No.1 and a surveyor appointed by the defendant No.1 during the pendency of the suit for taking measurement of the suit property gave evidence in opposing the claim of the plaintiffs. The learned Single Judge, by the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal, came to the conclusion that the Western Building Corporation was the owner of the entire building and that the said Corporation entered into an agreement for sale of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs. It was further held that at the time of taking the full consideration amount of such sale, the possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property until they were dispossessed by the defendant No.1 in the year 1985. It was further found that the defendant No.1 had no right to take possession of the suit property by virtue of his authority conferred upon him by this High Court as Administrator of the entire building. It was further found that the dispossession of the plaintiffs having been taken place in the year 1985, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was well within the period of limitation as prescribed in Article 64 of the Limitation Act. The learned Single Judge, consequently, granted a decree for recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiffs and further directed enquiry into ascertaining the mesne profits under the provisions of Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Being dissatisfied, the defendant No.1 has come up with the present first appeal. Mr Kapoor, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has strenuously contended before us that the learned Single Judge while passing the decree totally overlooked the fact that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the initial onus of proving the fact that there was a valid agreement for sale between the Western Building Corporation and the plaintiffs and that pursuant to such agreement, the plaintiffs got possession of the suit property. Mr. Mr. Kapoor contends that from the materials placed before the learned Trial Judge it was established that the so-called agreement was a manufactured one and that there were several interpolations in the said agreement which were not authenticated by the Western Building Corporation. Mr Kapoor further tried to convince us that there were inconsistent pieces of evidence adduced by the plaintiffs as regards the actual date on which the plaintiffs allegedly got possession of the suit property. Mr Kapoor contends that that the inability on the part of his client in proving that he took possession of the suit property by complying with the direction given by D. K. Sen, J. was inconsequential for the purpose of deciding the suit. According to Mr Kapoor, the plaintiffs having failed to prove the actual date of taking possession of the suit property pursuant to the agreement and having failed to prove conclusively the genuineness of the purported agreement for sale, the suit should have been dismissed even if it is established that the defendant No.1 had not complied with the direction of the Court while permitting him to take possession of a portion of the suit building for office room. According to Mr. Kapoor, by merely proving the signature of M.S. Bharat in the agreement for sale, the genuineness of the said document had not been proved. Mr. Kapoor further contends that in the absence of all the partners of Western Building Corporation the suit was not maintainable. Mr. Kapoor, therefore, prays for dismissal of the suit by setting aside the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Single Judge. Mr. Mitra, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, has, however, opposed the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Kapoor and has reiterated his submission made before the learned Trial Judge by supporting the detailed reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge. Mr. Mitra, therefore, prays for dismissing the appeal by affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge, in the facts of the present case, was justified in passing the decree impugned in this appeal. Mr. Mitra, therefore, prays for dismissing the appeal by affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge, in the facts of the present case, was justified in passing the decree impugned in this appeal. Before entering into the merit, we keep on record the following admitted facts appearing from the materials on record: The Western Building Corporation was admittedly the owner of the entire building of which the suit property is a part. The said Western Building Corporation entered into agreement for sale of different flats and portions of the said building with various occupants of the property to whom possession of the respective portions was delivered after taking the consideration-amount before the execution of the sale deeds. There were disputes between some of those occupants with the Western Building Corporation with regard to the payment of electricity charges, corporation taxes and maintenances of the common facilities of the said building, as a result, a suit was filed by those occupants against the Western Building Corporation. M.S. Bharat, a partner of the said Western Building Corporation, was then looking after the affairs of the corporation and used to sign agreements, accept money, and issue receipts etc. on behalf of the Corporation. In the said suit, the appellant, an outsider, was appointed as Administrator for the purpose of collection of electricity charges, corporation taxes and other service charges payable by the occupants for user of common facilities, for making those payments to the appropriate authorities and also for making supervision of necessary repairs and maintenance of the said building. Therefore, the role of the Administrator was really that of a manager for the above purposes but by the order appointing the said Administrator, this Court did not vest the property or any part thereof with the Administrator, nor was the said Administrator given any right to take possession of any part of the building or disturb the possession of any of the occupants of the building. The said Administrator had also no right to take any decision on any dispute as regards the title or possession of the respective occupiers of the said building. The said Administrator had also no right to take any decision on any dispute as regards the title or possession of the respective occupiers of the said building. It further appears from record that after being so appointed, the appellant demanded a list of the occupiers of the said building from the Western Building Corporation, the owner and a party to the suit, and consequently, a list was supplied to him wherein the name of the plaintiffs appeared as the occupiers of flat number 21 B of the said building which is the suit property in the present proceeding. Therefore, the Western Building Corporation by the said communication along with the list of the occupiers accepted the version of the plaintiffs that they paid the full amount of the purchase money for the portion in their occupation to the Western Building Corporation. In the written statement filed by the defendant No.2, in the present suit, such fact has been admitted. It further appears from record that by a subsequent order dated September 23, 1981, D.K. Sen, J. permitted the Administrator to take possession of a portion of the premises for the purpose of running administrative office after ascertaining the position from the Western Building Corporation as to the actual occupation of the vacant portion after giving a notice of two weeks to such occupant. The appellant admitted in his evidence that before taking possession of the suit property, he did not ascertain from the Western Building Corporation as to whether anyone was in occupation of the suit property, nor had he given any notice to the plaintiffs before taking such possession. We have already pointed out that it has been established from evidence on record that the appellant had already received the list of the occupiers wherefrom it would appear that the plaintiffs were described to be the occupiers of that portion by virtue of their agreement for sale with the Western Building Corporation. Therefore, according to the order of D. K. Sen, J., there was no scope of occupying any vacant portion of the building without ascertaining the right of occupier from the Western Building Corporation. Thus, it is apparent that with full knowledge of the occupation of the plaintiffs in the suit property, the defendant No.1 took possession of the suit property without complying with the direction contained in the order dated September 23, 1981. Thus, it is apparent that with full knowledge of the occupation of the plaintiffs in the suit property, the defendant No.1 took possession of the suit property without complying with the direction contained in the order dated September 23, 1981. Therefore, the first question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether within the scope of the suit out of which the present appeal arises, the defendant No.1/appellant is entitled to dispute the transaction between the plaintiffs and the Western Building Corporation or the possession of the plaintiffs once the Western Building Corporation has admitted such possession and the right of the plaintiffs. In the suit, the plaintiffs have claimed recovery of possession from the defendant No.1 based on their previous possession and not on the basis of title, because admittedly, no deed has yet been registered at the instance of the Western Building Corporation in favour of the plaintiffs. In such a suit, once the plaintiffs prove past possession and the suit is filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession, the suit is bound to succeed unless it is established that the defendant No.1 has better right than that of the plaintiffs in support of its possession. In the present proceedings, the appellant has not asserted any independent right of his own in his personal capacity than that of the Administrator appointed by the Court nor has he advanced any defence of adverse possession in his personal capacity. Such being the position, there is no scope of disputing the genuineness of the transaction between the plaintiffs and the Western Building Corporation at his instance when the Western Building Corporation has admitted the existence of agreement and the fact of putting the plaintiffs into the possession of the property. Apart from the admission of the Western Building Corporation, the agreement between the plaintiffs and the Western Building Corporation, and the payment of the consideration money of the transaction by cheque, followed by issue of receipts, have all been proved by production of documentary evidence. Apart from the admission of the Western Building Corporation, the agreement between the plaintiffs and the Western Building Corporation, and the payment of the consideration money of the transaction by cheque, followed by issue of receipts, have all been proved by production of documentary evidence. We, therefore, agree with the learned Trial Judge that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property pursuant to the agreement with the Western Building Corporation when the appellant took over as the Administrator pursuant to the order of the Court and that the appellant had illegally taken possession of the suit property even not following the conditions imposed by the order dated September 23, 1981 and thus, his action was even in violation of the order of the Court which appointed him as Administrator. Mr. Kapoor tried to convince us that by mere proving of signature of the author of the documents, the genuineness of the document is not proved and as such, we should ignore all those documents including receipts granted on behalf of the Western Building Corporation. We are afraid, we are not at all impressed by such submission. We have already pointed out that within the narrow scope of the present proceedings where the appellant has defended the possession not as of his own in his personal capacity but as Administrator appointed in a suit against the Western Building Corporation, he cannot dispute the genuineness of the agreement admitted by the owner of the building. Even he did not dispute the genuineness of the contents of the list of the occupiers and he really, acted on the basis of the same as the Administrator and never complained against the contents thereof before the Court which appointed him. The next question is whether the suit was barred by limitation. This type of a suit for recovery of possession should be filed within 12 years of the date of dispossession. The present suit was filed on May 3, 1995. In the plaint, the actual date of dispossession has not been given but it has been averred that the appellant took possession of the suit property after May 14, 1983. The appellant in his written statement tried to make out a case that he took possession in the last part of the year 1981. In the plaint, the actual date of dispossession has not been given but it has been averred that the appellant took possession of the suit property after May 14, 1983. The appellant in his written statement tried to make out a case that he took possession in the last part of the year 1981. It is now settled law that the onus is upon the defendant to prove that the suit is barred by limitation. In this case, the defendant No.1 admitted that he started using the suit property as the office from the year 1985. He failed to produce any document showing that he took possession of the property before May 14, 1983. In answer to the question put to him in cross-examination, he admitted that he had no document to show that he renovated the suit property after taking possession. No document has been filed showing expenditure for the purpose of renovation when according to him, the suit property was unfinished and he renovated the same. In such circumstances, it is apparent that he deliberately withheld those documents lest it is established that he really took possession in the year 1985. Moreover, it appears from Exbt. O, the letter dated May 14, 1983 written by the appellant to the Plaintiffs in reply to the letter dated May 11, 1983 (Exbt. N) wherein the plaintiffs asserted possession of the suit property and wanted connection of water supply and electricity and also to repair the suit property, the plaintiffs simply stated that the suit property was not constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan and that he was appointed by the Court only to administer the authorized portion and not the unauthorized portion of the building and thus, he could not permit the plaintiffs to repair the property or arrange for supply of electricity and water. In that letter, he advised the plaintiffs to approach the Court for necessary order. In that letter he never claimed that he had already taken possession of the said “unsanctioned portion of the building” to use the same as office. Thus, it is clear that he took possession of the suit property well within 12 years from the date of institution of the suit. Mr. In that letter he never claimed that he had already taken possession of the said “unsanctioned portion of the building” to use the same as office. Thus, it is clear that he took possession of the suit property well within 12 years from the date of institution of the suit. Mr. Kapoor by pointing out various discrepancies appearing from the evidence on record as regards the actual date of getting possession by the plaintiffs from the Western Building Corporation submitted that in view of those discrepancies we should disbelieve the transaction itself. In our opinion, in the present suit, the fact of possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property having been proved, the date of acquisition of the possession is of no consequence when it has been established that at the time of appointment of the defendant in the house the plaintiffs were in possession. In this case, the date of dispossession of the plaintiffs is of significance, which we have already discussed. We are also not impressed by the submission of Mr. Kapoor that the suit is defective for non-joinder of all the occupants of the premises. The plaintiffs have no grievance against the other occupants of the building and their grievance is only against the appellant and they have prayed for recovery of possession of only the portion over which they got possession by virtue of their agreement. In such a situation, the other occupants are not at all necessary party. Mr. Kapoor also contended that the description of the suit property is not correct and that the plaintiffs are trying to get possession of excess property than the one mentioned in the agreement. We have gone through the schedule, which is clear and unambiguous. The moment it has been established that the defendant at least has no right over the suit property, the Court should not entertain the contention of the defendant that somebody else is owner or the occupier of the part of the property when the defendant is not claiming through such third party. If somebody else who is not party to this proceeding has any right over any portion of the property, such person will necessarily not be bound by the decree that we propose to affirm and the law gives him right to raise dispute claiming independent title if by virtue of the decree somebody else’s right is going to be disturbed. If somebody else who is not party to this proceeding has any right over any portion of the property, such person will necessarily not be bound by the decree that we propose to affirm and the law gives him right to raise dispute claiming independent title if by virtue of the decree somebody else’s right is going to be disturbed. We, thus, find no substance in such contention. Lastly, Mr. Kapoor faintly contended that the suit should be held to be barred because the defendant being virtually a receiver appointed by Court, no suit should be decreed without taking the leave of the Court, which appointed the defendant as the Administrator. We have already disclosed the scope of appointment of the defendant No.1. Leave to sue a receiver is necessary only in those cases where by virtue of appointment of receiver, the original owner’s right is taken away and such right is conferred upon the receiver. The principle behind such proposition is that the Court being in actual control of the property through receiver, to sue receiver without permission of the Court amounts to contempt of Court. However, in a case where somebody has been appointed as Administrator for the purpose of collection of electricity charges, municipal taxes and other common service facility without giving any right to him to disturb the right of enjoyment of the property in possession of the parties or without vesting the property in the Administrator, no such permission is necessary. We, thus, find no substance even in the last submission of Mr. Kapoor. We now propose to deal with the decisions cited by Mr. Kapoor. In the case of Raj Krishna Parui vs. Muktaram Das reported in 12 CLJ 605, a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with the requirement of Section 9 of the Old Specific Relief Act which is equivalent to Section 6 of the present Specific Relief Act. The said principle cannot have any application to a regular Civil Suit for recovery of possession based on past possession and better right than that of the defendant whereas in case of a proceedings under Section 6 of the Act only settled possession of the plaintiffs and dispossession except by due process of law are required to be proved. The said principle cannot have any application to a regular Civil Suit for recovery of possession based on past possession and better right than that of the defendant whereas in case of a proceedings under Section 6 of the Act only settled possession of the plaintiffs and dispossession except by due process of law are required to be proved. Even after getting an order of recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiffs may lose possession by virtue of decree passed in a subsequent suit filed by the defendant of that proceedings based on better right and earlier possession. Order of possession in a proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is neither appealable nor is such order binding in subsequent suit between the parties or their representatives. Therefore, the said decision is inconsequential in the fact of the present suit based on better right and past possession. In the case of East India Hotels Ltd vs. Syndicate Bank reported in 1992 (Sup.) 2 SCC 29, there was difference of opinion between the two judges of the bench on a question whether a licensee, whose licence has been revoked, is entitled to get recovery of possession by taking aid of a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act where the plaintiffs were compelled to vacate the suit property due to fire breaking out in the suit property. We fail to appreciate, how the question involved therein can have any application to a regular suit filed by the plaintiffs based on past possession against a person having no right in the property and thus, the concept of “settled possession” or “of dispossession otherwise than due process of law” and the law relating to the application of those principles are immaterial in the facts of the present case. In the case of Ram Pat vs. State of Haryana reported in (2009) 7 SCC 614 , the question in a criminal appeal before the Apex Court was whether the purported overt acts committed by the accused would amount to “settled possession” so as to enable them to exercise their right of private defence in respect of the property. In that context, the Supreme Court discussed the ingredients of settled possession. In that context, the Supreme Court discussed the ingredients of settled possession. In the case before us, it is not necessary to prove settled possession of the plaintiffs in the property in order to get a decree for recovery of possession against a person having no right over the same. All that is necessary is that they got formal possession pursuant to the agreement for sale from the lawful owner, that a person having no better right has dispossessed them, and that such dispossession occurred within 12 years from the date of institution of the suit. In a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act if a trespasser wants to get relief from the lawful owner who has dispossessed him otherwise than in due process of law, in that event, the trespasser is required to prove settled possession in the property. Therefore, the said decision is of no avail to the appellant in this case. In the case of Khetra Basi Biswal vs. Ajay Kumar Baral reported in (2004) 1 SCC 317 , in the context of a writ-application challenging the merit list filed by the unsuccessful candidate, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of the successful candidates the said writ-application was not maintainable as no effective relief could be granted to the writ-applicant in the absence of the successful candidates whose right would be affected by outcome of the writ application if the same succeeds. In the case before us, the grievance of the plaintiffs was against the illegal act of the appellant alone and thus, in the absence of occupiers of the other portions of the building, there was no illegality in passing a decree as the same will not prejudicially affect any such persons and at the same time, the decree will not be even binding upon them. It is needless to mention that for effective adjudication of the dispute involved herein their presence is also not necessary. We, therefore, find that the said decision does not support the appellant in anyway. In the case of Madholal Sindhu vs. Asian Assurance Co. and others reported in AIR 1954 Bom. 305 , the well-settled proposition of law that by mere proving the handwriting of the author of the document, the correctness of the contents are not proved. By relying upon the said decision, Mr. In the case of Madholal Sindhu vs. Asian Assurance Co. and others reported in AIR 1954 Bom. 305 , the well-settled proposition of law that by mere proving the handwriting of the author of the document, the correctness of the contents are not proved. By relying upon the said decision, Mr. Kapoor contended that by not calling author of the agreement of sale or the grantor of the receipts, the genuineness of those documents were not proved. We have already pointed out that within the limited defence of the appellant he was not entitled to dispute the genuineness of those documents. Moreover, such facts have not only been proved by the oral corroborative evidence but the appellant has also admitted in cross-examination, that he received the list of lawful occupants of the building from the Western Building Corporation on which he acted without raising any dispute by referring the genuineness of the list to the Court which appointed him. Those circumstances are also sufficient to accept the genuineness of the transaction. Thus, the said decision does not support the appellant in anyway. We thus find that the decisions cited by Mr. Kapoor are of no avail to his client. All the points taken by Mr. Kapoor having failed and we find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned detailed judgment and decree passed by the learned single judge. The appeal, thus, is dismissed with costs. I agree.

Col. Mohit Mahalanobis (Retired) v. Mrs. Suprova Basu