JUDGMENT B. MANOHAR, J.—Appellant is the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5-11-2005 made in R.A. No. 106/2000 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM, Mangalore setting aside the judgment and decree dated 1-7-2000 made in O.S. No. 320/1996 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Mangalore, filed this appeal. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit O.S. No. 320/1996 seeking for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises and to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day and for cost and other reliefs. 3. In the plaint, the plaintiff has contended that 1 acre of land comprised in R.S. No. 4-2C, 4-1, 219/2 of Kolambe village of Mangalore Taluk, including the residential building bearing Door No. 2-215 situated therein are absolutely owned by the plaintiff. The same was purchased as per the registered sale deed dated 25-1-1962. At the time of purchasing the said property, the plaintiff was a minor. Ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiff continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the said properties including the building therein, in his own right. The defendant is the father of the plaintiff on account of filial relationship, he allowed the defendant to reside in the plaint schedule building as licensee on humanitarian consideration. However, of late, it is found that at the ill-advise of the younger brother of the plaintiff, the defendant has turned hostile to the plaintiff and began to damage the building and also tried to commit, acts of waste and damage to the premises and even he disowned the plaintiff as his son. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff had other alternative than to terminate and revoke the license granted to the defendant. Accordingly, a registered notice dated 12-4-1996 was issued terminating the license and called upon the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises within 30th April 1996. In spite of termination of the tenancy, the defendant failed to comply with the same. In view of that, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking for mandatory injunction and demanding mesne profits with interest. 4. The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the suit is tainted with gross mala fides and the plaintiff is not the owner of the plaint schedule property. In view of that, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking for mandatory injunction and demanding mesne profits with interest. 4. The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the suit is tainted with gross mala fides and the plaintiff is not the owner of the plaint schedule property. The defendant is in possession of the suit schedule premises from the date of its purchase not as a licensee. According to the defendant he has purchased the plaint schedule property comprising of the residential house bearing Door No. 2/215 situated at Kolambe village, Mangalore Taluk for a valuable sale consideration as per the registered sale deed dated 25-1-1962 out of his own earnings and the same was registered in the name of the plaintiff as he was minor at that time. At the time of purchase of the said property there exists a small thatched house. In the year 1963, after obtaining permission from the Competent Authorities, this defendant has constructed a new building of tiled roof. Since, then this defendant has been in possession and enjoyment alongwith his wife and children. The said house was electrocuted in the year 1965. He has made several alterations, additions and improvements to the said house periodically to suit the convenience of the big family of the defendant by spending huge money. Since childhood, the plaintiff and his brother and sisters are residing in the same house. However, the plaintiff was cantankerous nature and he never shown love, respect and affection towards his parents nor his brothers and sisters. He used to stay away from the house. The defendant has given his building for his business and also invested for the machinery and opened a workshop for stone quarrying business. Subsequently, the plaintiff has given up the said business. In order to harass the family members, the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S. No. 239/1994 seeking for injunction on the file of the First Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.) Mangalore and obtained ex parte order of temporary injunction by suppressing the true facts. Further the plaintiff has also filed another suit in O.S. No. 193/1996 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Mangalore for eviction of the defendant by making baseless allegations regarding his mental conditions. Dn.) Mangalore and obtained ex parte order of temporary injunction by suppressing the true facts. Further the plaintiff has also filed another suit in O.S. No. 193/1996 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Mangalore for eviction of the defendant by making baseless allegations regarding his mental conditions. Further there is no relationship of licensee and licensor and the said property alongwith the building were being enjoyed by the defendant by making huge improvement at his costs according to their convenience. The said act of the defendant cannot be treated as waste of the properties. He never acted hostile to the interest of the plaintiff. The defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession since from the date of purchase in the year 1962 and he has been in possession. All revenue records stand in the name of the defendant. Though the plaintiff attained the age of majority about 27 years ago, no attempt has been made to change the mutation entries. There is no relationship of licensee and licensor. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief and there is no cause of action to file the suit and sought for dismissal of the same. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is a absolute owner of the schedule property? (ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is in permissive occupation of the schedule property of a licensee? (iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that he terminated the license as per notice dated 30-4-1998? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits as prayed and interest at 18% p.a. as prayed? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction? (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a relief sought? (vii) What order or decree? 6. The plaintiff in support of his contention examined himself as P.W. 1 and got marked the documents as Ex. P1 to Ex. P15. On behalf of the defendant, valerian Fernandes examined himself as DW, 1 and got marked the documents as Ex. D1 to Ex. D31. 7. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments on both the sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties held issue Nos. P1 to Ex. P15. On behalf of the defendant, valerian Fernandes examined himself as DW, 1 and got marked the documents as Ex. D1 to Ex. D31. 7. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments on both the sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties held issue Nos. (i) to (vi) in the affirmative and declared that the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits and also entitled for mandatory injunction. Accordingly by its judgment and decree dated 1-7-2000 decreed the suit by granting mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule premises within 30 days from the date of the order. 8. The defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 320/1996 filed an appeal in RA. No. 106/2000 contending that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is contrary to law and evidence on record. The Trial Court has not framed proper issues and not applied correct principle of law with regard to the facts of the case and not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed before it. The finding of the trial Court on all issues is erroneous in law. No document, has been produced before the Court below to show that the possession of the suit schedule premises by the defendant is as a licensee. Hence, the question of terminating the license by issuing notice does not arise. Apart from that the plaintiff himself left the house and is living separately. Hence, the question of seeking possession of the property does not arise. The suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable and sought for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court below. 9. The Appellate Court after hearing arguments of the parties framed the following points for its consideration. (i) Whether there exists the relationship of licensee and licensor between the appellant and the respondent? (ii) Whether the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and materials on record and failed to come to the correct conclusion on the points involved in the suit? (iii) Are there any reasonable grounds to set aside the impugned judgment and decree? (iv) To what order? 10. The 1st Appellate Court after reappreciating the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties and considering the arguments addressed by the parties held point No. 1 in the negative and point Nos. (iii) Are there any reasonable grounds to set aside the impugned judgment and decree? (iv) To what order? 10. The 1st Appellate Court after reappreciating the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties and considering the arguments addressed by the parties held point No. 1 in the negative and point Nos. 2 and 3 in the affirmative and allowed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 5.11.2005 by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 1.7.2000 made in O.S. No. 320/1996. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 11. Sri Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court is contrary to the facts of the case. The 1st Appellate Court, has failed to appreciate the material evidence on record in proper perspective and erroneously reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The findings of the 1st Appellate Court is that the suit filed by the plaintiff for mandatory injunction is not maintainable and erroneous in law. The appreciation of legal grounds by the 1st Appellate Court is contrary to law. Further he contended that as per the registered sale deed dated 25.1.1962, the plaintiff has purchased the property and the building bearing Door No. 2-215 is situated therein. However, he has permitted the defendant to reside in the residential house since there was filial relationship. However, the defendant is against the interest of the plaintiff at the ill-advise of younger brother of the plaintiff. In view of that, as per legal notice dated 12.4.1996, Ex. P28, issued by the plaintiff to the defendant terminating the license and called upon to handover the vacant possession since the defendant failed to comply with the same, the suit, for mandatory injunction has been filed against the defendant. The suit is maintainable. The 1st Appellate Court without considering the oral and documentary evidence came to the wrong conclusion. The reasoning of the 1st Appellate Court is that the plaintiff has to file the suit for possession is erroneous in law. Since the plaintiff is the owner, he has permitted the defendant to occupy the premises. After cancellation of the license, the occupation of the defendant becomes illegal. The suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable for vacating the schedule premises with mesne profits. Since the plaintiff is the owner, he has permitted the defendant to occupy the premises. After cancellation of the license, the occupation of the defendant becomes illegal. The suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable for vacating the schedule premises with mesne profits. The entire approach made by the 1st Appellate Court is contrary to law. He also relied upon the following judgments: 1. AIR 1985 SC 857 , Sant Lal Jain vs. Avtar Singh. 2. AIR 1992 Delhi 202, Shri Arjan Dev vs. Shri Om Parkash. 3. ILR 1995 Kant. 3219, Jagannatha vs. Petitioner S. Sridhara Murthy. 4. (2005) 7 SCC 867, Joseph Severance and others vs. Benriy Mathew and others. 5. AIR 2003 Kant. 428, Mohandas Dattaram Prabhu and others vs. U.F.M. Mukund Honnappa Naik. 12. On the other hand, Sri Vishwajit Shetty, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1(a) and Sri Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1(f) argued in support of the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court. 13. Sri Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1(f) contended that the suit filed in the form of mandatory injunction to vacate the defendant is not maintainable. He contended that originally 1 acre of land in RS No. 4-2C, 4-1, 219/2 of Kolambe village, Mangalore Taluk and the suit schedule building bearing Door No. 2-215 was purchased by the defendant on 25.1.1962 as per the registered sale deed in the name of plaintiff. At that time, the plaintiff was aged about 7 years. The defendant was having 11 children. The plaintiff is the eldest among them. After purchase of the said property, defendant removed the thatched house and constructed the new house after obtaining necessary permission from the Competent Authority in the year 1963. In the year 1965, he got the electricity connection to the said house. The defendant and the family members alongwith the plaintiff were residing in the said house and renovated the house to suit their convenience for the big family. The renovation of house will not amount to damaging the house. The plaintiff is very cantankerous and quarrelsome. For his livelihood, the defendant had set up a workshop by investing huge money for the laterite stone quarry business. However he has given up the said business. 14. The renovation of house will not amount to damaging the house. The plaintiff is very cantankerous and quarrelsome. For his livelihood, the defendant had set up a workshop by investing huge money for the laterite stone quarry business. However he has given up the said business. 14. Sri Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat further contended that the plaintiff himself left the house and thereafter he filed O.S. No. 239/1935 for injunction in order to harass the defendant and his brothers and sisters residing in the family house. Thereafter the plaintiff filed one more suit in O.S. No. 193/1996 for eviction In the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Mangalore by making baseless allegations regarding the mental conditions of the defendant. At no stretch of imagination, possession of the defendant in the family house cannot be treated as a licensee. The defendant was residing in the said house on his own right though the property was purchased in the name of his minor son i.e. the plaintiff. This defendant had invested his huge earnings for purchase of the said house. The 1st Appellate Court on reappreciating the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove the possession of the defendant as a licensee and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court. Further the suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 15. At the time of admission of the above appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law that arise for consideration in this appeal: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff’ i.e. the appellant herein is not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction?” 16. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has filed the suit for mandatory injunction and a direction to the defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises and for the mesne profits contending that he is the owner of the suit schedule property purchased on 25.1.1962. In view of the close relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, he contended that he permitted the defendant to reside in the residential premises. However, the defendant was acting against, the interest of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the license has been terminated on 12.4.1996 by issuing registered notice since the defendant failed to handover the possession. In view of the close relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, he contended that he permitted the defendant to reside in the residential premises. However, the defendant was acting against, the interest of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the license has been terminated on 12.4.1996 by issuing registered notice since the defendant failed to handover the possession. Therefore, the said suit has been filed for mandatory injunction. On the other hand, the 1st defendant contended that 1-acre of land and the suit schedule property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff in the year 1962. At that time, the plaintiff was aged about 7 years. The plaintiff, the defendant and other family members were residing in the very same house. After purchase of the said property, the defendant constructed the tiled house demolishing the thatched house after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authorities in the year 1963 and also got electricity connection in the year 1965. All the family members of the plaintiff and defendant are residing in the same house. Till the year 1995, mutation entries stand in the name of the defendant and the defendant was paying the property tax. Krushi passbook is standing in the name of the defendant. However, the plaintiff himself left the house and thereafter filed the suit after suit to harass the defendant and other family members and the present suit is in the form of mandatory injunction for vacating and the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. 17. The plaintiff in order to prove his case examined himself as P.W. 1 and got marked the document as Exs.Pl to PI5. In his examination-in-chief, he has reiterated the plaint averments and contended that his brothers and sisters have thrown him out of the suit schedule property. In the cross-examination, he has contended that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule premises and the revenue records stand in the name of the plaintiff. He is paying the tax. Since he has issued notice canceling the license, the possession of the defendant is unauthorised and sought to decree the suit. 18. In the cross-examination, he has contended that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule premises and the revenue records stand in the name of the plaintiff. He is paying the tax. Since he has issued notice canceling the license, the possession of the defendant is unauthorised and sought to decree the suit. 18. On behalf of the defendant, Sri Valerian Femandes was examined as D.W. 1, and deposed that the father of the plaintiff and the defendant had purchased 1 acre of land and the suit: schedule property in the year 1962 and constructed a new house in the year 1963 and residing in the house on his own right alongwith the family members. The possession of the defendant is not as a licensee. The suit in the form of mandatory injunction is not maintainable. In the cross-examination he has admitted that at the time of purchase of the suit schedule premises it was a thatched house. After removing the thatched house, a new house was constructed in the year 1963 and got electricity connection in the year 1965. Ex. D1 is the license issued by the competent Authority to construct the house. Ex. D2 is the permission for electricity connection. Ex. D3 to Ex. D11 are the RTC entries. Due to the old age, the defendant could not come to lead evidence. He got permission to lead evidence. The original sale deed was marked as Ex. D31. 19. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, I am of the view that the defendant being the father of the plaintiff purchased the suit, schedule property in the year 1962 in the name of the plaintiff, who was aged about 7 years, for a valuable consideration. Since then the plaintiff and the defendant, are residing in the suit schedule property after constructing the new tiled roof house. The defendant was having 11 children including the plaintiff. All of them are residing in the said premises. For the benefit of the plaintiff, the defendant had set up the workshop by investing huge amount for stone quarrying business. Due to the cantankerous nature of the plaintiff from his childhood, he has left the house and is residing separately alongwith his wife and children. The defendant cannot be treated as licensee. For the benefit of the plaintiff, the defendant had set up the workshop by investing huge amount for stone quarrying business. Due to the cantankerous nature of the plaintiff from his childhood, he has left the house and is residing separately alongwith his wife and children. The defendant cannot be treated as licensee. The defendant being the father of the plaintiff had purchased the property in the name of the plaintiff, when he was a minor and entitled to continue in possession of the property. The possession of the defendant, at no stretch of imagination can be treated as a licensee. The contention of the plaintiff is that, the defendant was allowed to reside in the suit schedule premises on humanitarian consideration cannot be acceptable. The plaintiff in his evidence has admitted that he has been thrown out from the suit schedule premises by his brothers and sisters. He also admitted that till 1995, he has not taken any steps for change of mutation entries in his name. Only after 1995, after making a necessary application, he got mutated his name after attaining majority. When the plaintiff himself has admitted that he has been forcibly dispossessed from the suit schedule premises, he cannot maintain the suit for mandatory injunction. The evidence on record clearly discloses that the possession of the defendant is not as a lessee or licensee. The plaintiff has also not produced any document, to show that the possession of the defendant is either on lease or license. In the absence of the same, he cannot issue the legal notice for terminating the license. The evidence of the plaintiff is very clear that by illegal means, his brothers and sisters have thrown out the plaintiff from the premises. Hence, he has to file the suit for possession of the suit schedule premises. Further, the question of moulding the relief by the Court also does notarise. Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, any person dispossessed from the immovable property has to file a suit within a period of six months from the date of dispossession. In the instant case, he has filed the suit for mandatory injunction and for vacating the suit schedule premises after lapse of limitation in period. Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, any person dispossessed from the immovable property has to file a suit within a period of six months from the date of dispossession. In the instant case, he has filed the suit for mandatory injunction and for vacating the suit schedule premises after lapse of limitation in period. Hence, the question of moulding the relief and ordering eviction does not arise, since the suit has not been filed within a period of six months from his forcible dispossession from the suit schedule property. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove the possession of the defendant as a licensee or lessee, he cannot maintain the suit for mandatory injunction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in AIR 1995 SC 857 cited supra clearly held that the suit filed for mandatory injunction after considerable delay is not maintainable. Some of the judgments relied upon by the Advocate for the appellant are also not applicable to the facts of the case. All these judgments are with, regard to the cancellation of license and the suit for mandatory injunction held to be maintainable. In the instant case, the plaintiff has failed to prove the possession of the defendant as a licensee or lessee. Hence, the suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable. The 1st Appellate Court on reappreciating the oral and documentary evidence held that the trial Court has not considered the evidence in proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion that the suit for mandatory injunction for vacating the suit schedule property is maintainable. The 1st Appellate Court on reappreciating oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the possession of the defendant at no stretch of imagination can be treated as a licensee or lessee. Hence, the question of filing the suit for mandatory injunction does not arise. Therefore, I find no error or irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court.. Accordingly, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal against the appellant, holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for mandatory injunction vacating the defendant is answered against the plaintiff. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 5.11.2005 passed in RA No. 106/2000 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM, Mangalore is confirmed. Parties to bear their own cost.