JUDGMENT DEBANGSU BASAK, J. The suit is for recovery of possession of a portion of the upper flat at premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata from the defendants. There are five defendants in the suit. The first defendant has allegedly encroached upon and/or trespassed into a portion of the building owned by the plaintiff. The first defendant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. The second and the third defendants are the President and Vice-President of the Kolkata branch of the first defendant at Kolkata. The fourth defendant was the owner of premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata from whom the fifth defendant purchased the said premises. Premises Nos. 3A and 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata came into being out of premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata. Smt. Priyambada Debi was the owner of premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata. By her Will dated April 6, 1926 she bequeathed 8 annas in the eastern portion of the land and building of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata to Saileswar Singh Roy absolutely and 8 annas in the western portion of the land and building of the said premises to Lila Mohan Singh Roy absolutely. The original plaintiff claims that, the building situate at premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata consisted of a two-storied structure having a lower and an upper flat. By an indenture dated June 18, 1971 the owners of premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata, namely, Lila Mohan Singh Roy inducted the first defendant as a lessee of a demarcated portion at the upper flat of premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata. The said Lila Mohan Singh Roy subsequently sold premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata to the fourth defendant. The original plaintiff claims that, at the time of letting out of the upper flat of premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata there was separation of the two premises by a clear line of demarcation. The first defendant and his servants and agents wrongfully encroached upon and trespassed into a portion of the upper flat owned by the original plaintiff at premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata. The first defendant and his servants and agents wrongfully encroached upon and trespassed into a portion of the upper flat owned by the original plaintiff at premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata. After such trespass or illegal encroachment the first defendant and his servants or agents has unlawfully constructed a wooden mezzanine floor in the encroached portion and also put up plastic shed on the covered area of the entire first floor verandah, eastern portion of which is within the entitlement of the original plaintiff as the owner of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata. The original plaintiff notes the claim of the first and the second defendant that, the fifth defendant has purchased the right, title and interest of the fourth defendant at premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata. The plaintiff claims loss and damages at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square feet per day amounting to Rs. 54,750/- for the period of three years prior to the institution of the suit. The plaintiff claims compensation for trespass at such rate as may be determined by the Court for the period subsequent thereto. The plaintiff also claims recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of the portion of the premises belonging to the original plaintiff by evicting the defendants therefrom. The first and the second defendants filed a written statement. The first and the second defendants denied the allegations levelled against them by the plaintiff. They claim that, the first defendant continued to be a lessee or a tenant of the portion let out to the first defendant under the lease deed dated June 18, 1971. They claim that, the portion let out consisted of one hall, two bed rooms, two bath rooms, one pantry and one verandah on the first floor and one room with attached small room in the second floor and one garage and two servant’s room in the outhouse of the premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata. They also claim that, the verandah on the first floor of premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata included the entire front and back portion of the verandah. The claim that, the first defendant is in possession and occupation thereof pursuant to and in terms of the lease deed dated June 18, 1971. They were put into possession of the entirety of the area that they are presently possessing by virtue of the said deed of lease. The claim that, the first defendant is in possession and occupation thereof pursuant to and in terms of the lease deed dated June 18, 1971. They were put into possession of the entirety of the area that they are presently possessing by virtue of the said deed of lease. Therefore, there is no question of any of the defendants committing any trespass and/or encroaching upon any property belonging to the plaintiff. The plaint was amended from time to time. Being aggrieved by one of the Orders allowing amendment to the plaint an appeal was preferred by the first defendant. By an Order dated March 13, 2014 the Appeal Court directed that, the hearing of the suit can proceed. However, in case the first defendant suffered any decree, such decree may not be executed without the express leave being obtained from the Appeal Court. There is, therefore, no impediment in the consideration of the suit for disposal. The issues in the suit were settled on April 8, 2014. Such issues are as follows:- 1. Did the first defendant encroach upon or trespass into any portion of any premises beyond what was originally let out to the defendant no. 1? 2. Was the 1st defendant inducted as a Lessee under the indenture of Lease dated 18th June, 1971 in respect of the portion of the premises now occupied by the defendant no. 1? 3. Was the defendant no. 1 inducted as a tenant even before the said lease? If so when? 4. Prior to the demise in favour of the defendant no. 1 was the premises clearly demarcated on both floors and only such demarcated upper portion was let out to the defendant no.1? 5. Is the defendant in unlawful occupation of any part of the premises now in possession of the defendant no. 1? 6. Could the suit as originally framed by maintained in the absence of Kamala Prasad Singh Roy? 7. Is the claim of the plaintiff barred by law of limitation? 8. Is the suit barred by principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence and/or principles analogous thereto? 9. To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled? The original plaintiff died and was substituted by his son. The present plaintiff of the suit came to the box as the witness of the plaintiff. The first defendant produced two witnesses. 8. Is the suit barred by principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence and/or principles analogous thereto? 9. To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled? The original plaintiff died and was substituted by his son. The present plaintiff of the suit came to the box as the witness of the plaintiff. The first defendant produced two witnesses. The parties relied upon various documents which are marked exhibits in the suit. Mr. Ahin Chowdhury learned Senior Advocate for the first defendant submits that, the dispute in the instant suit relates to 250 square feet of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata. He refers to the first paragraph of the plaint and submits that, premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata came into being in 1972. The first defendant came into possession of its leasehold interest by virtue of a deed of lease dated June 18, 1971. The lease was granted with effect from May 1, 1971. The first defendant was put into possession of the demised premises and is in possession since then. He refers to the first, second and forth paragraphs of the plaint and submits that, on June 18, 1971 when the lease deed was entered into, premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata was not in existence. He refers to various paragraphs of the plaint particularly paragraphs 9 and 10 and submits that, the plaint does not disclose the date when the alleged trespass and/or encroachment took place. The allegations in the plaint according to him are extremely vague. It refers to the alleged trespass and/or encroachment after the grant of the tenancy. When the alleged trespass took place after the grant of the tenancy is not specified in the plaint. He places various paragraphs of the additional written statement particularly paragraph 5 thereof. He relies upon Exhibit ‘E’ being the lease deed dated June 18, 1971 and the recitals therein and submits that, Lila Mohan Singh Roy and Kamala Prasad Singh Roy were the lessors. The recitals speak of Exhibit ‘E’ state that the lessors were absolutely seized and possessed of the western half of premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata. He places reliance on the description of the property given in the deed of lease and submits that, the first defendant was put into possession of the entirety of the premises described in the deed of lease. He places reliance on the description of the property given in the deed of lease and submits that, the first defendant was put into possession of the entirety of the premises described in the deed of lease. He submits that, the verandah is referred to at various places in the deed of lease dated June 18, 1971. He refers to the clauses in the deed of lease where it provides that the lessors will arrange for fixing up doors at the entrance of the main building when the same will be partitioned between the lessors and the other co-sharers namely, the original plaintiff. Referring to such clause at page 31A of the Judge’s Brief of Documents, Mr. Chowdhury submits that, the property was yet to be partitioned on the date of the lease being June 18, 1971 as would appear from the recitals of the deed of lease. He refers to deed of partition dated May 26, 1971 being Exhibit ‘D.’ He submits that, partition of premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata happens by this deed. He submits that, this deed dated May 26, 1971 is not registered and, therefore, cannot be looked into as an evidence of partition of an immovable property in view of Siromani & Another vs. Hemkumar & Others, All India Reporter 1968 Supreme Court 1299. He relies upon Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act in support of such proposition. He, thereafter, refers to various answers given by the witness of the plaintiff. In particular, he refers to answers given to question Nos. 158 to 175. He submits that, the evidence of the alleged trespass is at best sketchy. The date when the alleged trespass took place is not stated by the plaintiff’s witness. According the three versions of the witness of the plaintiff at best the trespass had happened sometime between 1980-1982. He refers to Exhibit ‘I’ being a letter dated October 1, 1982 written by the Solicitor of the plaintiff. He submits that, even this letter does not speak of the date when the alleged trespass took place. This letter does not mention breaking of a wall by his client. He refers to the Order dated December 21, 2009 passed in the instant suit at the interlocutory stage and submits that, the case of the respective parties are noted in the said order. This letter does not mention breaking of a wall by his client. He refers to the Order dated December 21, 2009 passed in the instant suit at the interlocutory stage and submits that, the case of the respective parties are noted in the said order. He proceeds to refer to the various answers given by the witness of the plaintiff in examination-in-chief being question Nos. 31 to 38. He submits that, reading the answers given in the examination-in-chief to question Nos. 8, 13, 23-25, 28 and 29, the evidence of the plaintiff should not be believed. Mr. Chowdhury submits that, it would be safer, in view of the inconsistent stand of the witness of the plaintiff in his evidence, as well as the claim of his clients not to have trespassed into any property, to rely upon the documents disclosed in evidence to arrive at the finding on the issues raised in the suit. He submits that, reading the contents of the documents marked as exhibits in the proceedings it cannot be said that his client trespassed and/or illegally encroached into any portion of any premises. According to him, Exhibit ‘E’ being the lease deed dated June 18, 1971 which provides for commencement of the tenancy from May 1, 1971 cannot be assailed by the plaintiff. This lease deed precedes the so-called partition. The lease deed speaks of a verandah and that the entirety of the verandah was demised by the deed of lease and not a portion. In this context he refers to answers given by the plaintiff to question Nos. 147 to 149. He refers to Exhibit ‘B’ being the Will of Priyambada Debi and the contents thereof at pages 60, 63A, 70A, 72A and 73A of the Judge’s Brief of Documents. According to him the Will did not partition the premises concerned, it only bequeathed 8 annas in the western and 8 annas in the eastern portions of premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata to the respective beneficiaries. On Exhibit ‘D’ which is a deed showing partition and is dated May 1, 1971 Mr. Chowdhury submits that, the document is inadmissible in evidence as an instrument of partition since Exhibit ‘D’ is not registered under the Registration Act. On Exhibit ‘D’ which is a deed showing partition and is dated May 1, 1971 Mr. Chowdhury submits that, the document is inadmissible in evidence as an instrument of partition since Exhibit ‘D’ is not registered under the Registration Act. He refers to answer given by the plaintiff’s witness to question No. 25 and submits that, it is the claim of the plaintiff that the partition happened by Exhibit ‘D.’ Therefore, the document being inadmissible in evidence, such oral testimony cannot be believed. He submits that, Exhibit ‘D’ was marked subject to objection with the objection being directed to be decided at trial. Therefore, he submits that, Exhibit ‘D’ cannot be looked into at all. On Exhibit ‘D’ he submits that, in the event the Court is not with him on his objection, then also the contents of Exhibit ‘D’ does not show a partition by metes and bounds between the two premises. Firstly, he submits that, Exhibit ‘D’ cannot affect any right of the first defendant at the demised premises since a document subsequent to the creation of the lease cannot affect the lease particularly when the first defendant is not a party thereto. Partition by metes and bounds cannot happen by subsequent allotment of separate municipal numbers. Even this, according to the plaintiff, premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata was partitioned into premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata and premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata on and from the fourth quarter of 1972-1973 when the first defendant was already in possession. He submits that, the oral testimony of the plaintiff as to the alleged trespass and/or encroachment cannot be believed on various grounds. The witness did not give the date when the alleged trespass and/or encroachment took place. Three different versions of the date appear from the oral testimony. Answer to question No. 38 speaks of 1982, answer to question Nos. 150 speaks of 1981-1982 and answer to question No. 160 speaks of 1980-1981. He refers to answers given by the plaintiff in question Nos. 97 and 98 where the plaintiff admits that he was in the house till 2006. Mr. Chowdhury points out that the plaintiff is not an ordinary litigant and that he is an Advocate practising in this Court and, therefore, deemed to be aware of his rights. It is unbelievable, according to him that, the plaintiff did not complain to any authority contemporaneously. Mr. Chowdhury points out that the plaintiff is not an ordinary litigant and that he is an Advocate practising in this Court and, therefore, deemed to be aware of his rights. It is unbelievable, according to him that, the plaintiff did not complain to any authority contemporaneously. The manner of encroachment claimed by the plaintiff is also commented upon by Mr. Chowdhury. The plaint does not speak of manner of encroachment and/or trespass. There is no mention of breaking of wall in the plaint. No mention of breaking of wall in the letter of the Solicitor and also in the examination-in-chief. The witness of the plaintiff in answer to question Nos. 175 to 177 in cross-examination claims that, the first defendant broke a wall. Mr. Chowdhury submits that, the inaction of the plaintiff to make any complain to any authority at the contemporaneous point of time was sought to be explained by the plaintiff by stating that, the original plaintiff used to look after the affairs. He submits that, such contention should be disbelieved as the plaintiff is an Advocate. Mr. Chowdhury points out that there is no letter of the original plaintiff to such effect also. Mr. Chowdhury submits that, the plaintiff sought to introduce a porch into the building and sought to distinguish it with the verandah to get over the description of the demised premises in the lease deed. According to Mr. Chowdhury not replying to Exhibit ‘I’ being the letter dated October 1, 1982 was not fatal to his clients. Exhibit ‘I’ is not a statutory notice which raises a presumption as against his clients. The plaintiff has to prove his case notwithstanding no reply to Exhibit ‘I.’ According to him, the plaintiff has failed to prove trespass and/or illegal encroachment. He submits that, the claim of the plaintiff is actuated by his desire to develop the property. The plaintiff, according to him, is not entitled to any relief in the suit. Mr. Arijit Chaudhuri learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff submits that, the basis of the submissions on behalf of the defendants is based on Lila Mohan Singh Roy being the owner of premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata. The plaintiff, according to him, is not entitled to any relief in the suit. Mr. Arijit Chaudhuri learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff submits that, the basis of the submissions on behalf of the defendants is based on Lila Mohan Singh Roy being the owner of premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata. He submits that, premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata belonged to Priyambada Debi who by her will dated April 6, 1926 bequeathed 8 annas in the eastern portion of premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata which subsequently became numbered as premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata to Saileswar Singh Roy and 8 annas in the western portion of premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata to Lila Mohan Singh Roy which subsequently became numbered as premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata. So far as premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata was concerned Saileswar Singh Roy made a Will bequeathing the entirety of the said premises to his wife Kanaklata Debi as life interest and absolutely in favour of Sunil Singh Roy, the original plaintiff. Upon the death of the original plaintiff the present plaintiff inherited the entire property of his father. Mr. Arijit Chaudhuri submits that, the Will of Priyambada Debi dated April 6, 1926 specified that eight annas in eastern portion will go to Saileswar Singh Roy while eight annas in the western portion will go to Lila Mohan Singh Roy. Partition according to him, took place on May 26, 1971 by Exhibit ‘D.’ He submits that when the Will refers to 8 annas the Will mean the exact half in the premises. He refers to Exhibit ‘C’ which is the Will of Saileswar Singh Roy as well as answers given to question Nos. 14 to 22 by the witness of the plaintiff. He submits that, Lila Mohan Singh Roy could have given lease of such portion of the premises that belonged to him. It cannot be contended, according to him, that Lila Mohan Singh Roy was in a position to demise any portion of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata over which he had no right to any of the defendants by lease or otherwise. He refers to various questions and answers of the witness of the plaintiff and submits that, there was one porch apart from the verandah at the premises concerned. He refers to various questions and answers of the witness of the plaintiff and submits that, there was one porch apart from the verandah at the premises concerned. He refers to Exhibit ‘K’ being the document of sale between Lila Mohan Singh Roy to the Defendant No. 4. In such document Lila Mohan Singh Roy stated that, he never let out any portion of the premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata to any of the defendants. He refers to the conveyance between Lila Mohan Singh Roy and the Defendant No. 4 being Exhibit ‘L’ in respect of premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata. He submits that, the first, second and third defendants have admitted that they are in occupation of a portion of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata and that such admission will appear from paragraph 5 of the additional written statement, report of Special Officer being Exhibit ‘M’ at page 190 of Judge’s Brief of Documents as well as Exhibits ‘I’ and ‘J.’ He refers to answers given by the plaintiff in question Nos. 5, 6 and 52 where such witness identified the portion trespassed upon by the defendants and submits that, the witness of the plaintiff was not cross-examined on the point. So far as the extent of trespass is concerned, according to Mr. Arijit Chaudhuri the same will appear from the report of the Special Officer being Exhibit ‘P.’ In such circumstances he submits that, the plaintiff having proved a case of trespass is entitled to a decree for recovery of possession. So far as computation of mesne-profit is concerned he submits that, a Special Referee be appointed for the purpose of computation of mesne-profit and upon such computation being made a decree be passed for the same. The first five issues settled on April 8, 2014 being correlated are taken up together. The issues are of encroachment and trespass, and if so, the extent of encroachment and trespass. The plaintiff claims to be the sole and absolute owner of the premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata. The said premises is adjoining premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata. The first five issues settled on April 8, 2014 being correlated are taken up together. The issues are of encroachment and trespass, and if so, the extent of encroachment and trespass. The plaintiff claims to be the sole and absolute owner of the premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata. The said premises is adjoining premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata. In fact, premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata and premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata emanated out of one premises by virtue of the Will of Priyambada Debi dated April 6, 1926 being Exhibit ‘B.’ The plaintiff claims that, the defendants encroached into a portion of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata. To establish that the defendants have encroached into premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata, the plaintiff relies upon the Will of Priyambada Debi dated April 6, 1926 being Exhibit ‘B’ as well as the lease deed dated June 18, 1971 being Exhibit ‘E’ executed by Lila Mohan Singh Roy in favour of the first defendant. Exhibit ‘B’ is the Will of Priyambada Debi dated April 6, 1926. By this Will Priyambada Debi bequeathed, her Stree dhan properties and the properties left by her mother, between her the then minor adopted son Lila Mohan Singh Roy and the son of her daughter Saileswar Singh Roy. The Will describes that Lila Mohan Singh Roy will get absolute right in the properties mentioned in Schedule ‘Ka’ to the Will and Saileswar Singh Roy will get absolute right in the properties mentioned in Schedule ‘Kha’ to the Will. Schedule ‘Ka’ to the Will begins at page 70A of the Judge’s Brief of Documents. The relevant portion is at page 71A paragraph 10 where premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata is described. The Will states that eight annas in the western portion of premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata will vest upon Lila Mohan Singh Roy while in Schedule ‘Ka’ Priyambada Debi in her Will states that, the eight annas of the eastern portion of the premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata will vest with Saileswar Singh Roy. The Will of Priyambada Debi, therefore, divided the premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata into two exact halves. Both Lila Mohan Singh Roy and Saileswar Singh Roy understood the Will to mean that premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata was divided between them in exact halves. The Will of Priyambada Debi, therefore, divided the premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata into two exact halves. Both Lila Mohan Singh Roy and Saileswar Singh Roy understood the Will to mean that premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata was divided between them in exact halves. The fact that, Lila Mohan Singh Roy accepted the division of premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata into two exact halves by the Will of Priyambada Debi will appear from the recitals in the deed of lease dated June 18, 1971 being Exhibit ‘E’ by which he was demising the upper floor flat of premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata to the first defendant. No person tracing title through Lila Mohan Singh Roy can therefore claim a right higher or greater than him in respect of premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata, or an area larger than what he understood and accepted in respect of the said premises. Exhibit ‘E’ is a deed of lease dated June 18, 1971 entered into between Lila Mohan Singh Roy as the lessor and the first defendant as the lessee. The recital at page 19A of the Judge’s Brief of Documents being a portion of Exhibit ‘E’ states that, the lessor is in possession of the western portion of premises No. 3, Albert Road, Kolkata. It goes on to say that, lessors will arrange for fixing up doors at the entrance of the main building when the same will be partitioned between the lessors and other co-sharer. The lease commences from May 1, 1971. When Lila Mohan Singh Roy was granting the lease in respect the upper floor lying and situate at the western portion being premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata, he was entitled to grant a lease to the extent of the property vesting upon him by virtue of the Will of Smt. Priyambada Debi being Exhibit ‘B.’ It is nobody’s case before me that, Lila Mohan Singh Roy granted lease of a property not belonging to him to the defendants. The contesting defendants before me, contend, they were in possession of the entirety of the verandah on and from May 1, 1971 and, therefore, they cannot be said to be in wrongful occupation of any portion of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata. The contesting defendants before me, contend, they were in possession of the entirety of the verandah on and from May 1, 1971 and, therefore, they cannot be said to be in wrongful occupation of any portion of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata. According to them, at the point of time on May 1, 1971 the two premises were not demarcated as will appear from the recital of Exhibit ‘E’ being the lease deed dated June 18, 1971 when the lease deed speaks of putting up of doors to demarcate the partition between the lessors and the other co-sharer. I am afraid, I am not in a position to accept such contention of the contesting defendants. As rightly submitted by Mr. Arijit Chaudhuri, Lila Mohan Singh Roy could not grant a valid lease in respect of any part or portion of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata for the simple reason that Lila Mohan Singh Roy had no right, title and interest in respect of any part of portion of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata at any point of time. Lila Mohan Singh Roy recognized that, he had no right, title and interest in respect of any part or portion of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata. He referred to the illegal occupation of the contesting defendants in a portion of the premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata when he entered into an agreement for sale in respect of premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata being Exhibit ‘K.’ The agreement for sale being Exhibit ‘K’ is between Lila Mohan Singh Roy and the fourth defendant. Subsequently, Lila Mohan Singh Roy sold premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata to the fourth defendant through the registered deed of conveyance being Exhibit ‘L.’ It is not disputed by the parties before me that, the fourth defendant sold premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata to the fifth defendant. However, the conveyance between the fourth and fifth defendants in this regard is not before me. The fifth defendant traces its title in premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata through the fourth defendant and from Lila Mohan Singh Roy. Lila Mohan Singh Roy was certain as to the extent of the partition and the extent of premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata when he was giving lease of the upper floor of the said premises to the first defendant. Lila Mohan Singh Roy was certain as to the extent of the partition and the extent of premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata when he was giving lease of the upper floor of the said premises to the first defendant. He could not have granted a valid lease in respect of any other property to the first defendant apart from the property of which he was the owner. The lease deed dated June 18, 1971 being Exhibit ‘E’ has to be read in such context. The covenant in the deed of lease that subsequently doors will be put up at the appropriate place between the two premises has to be read in such light. Such covenant in the deed of lease is the recognition of the first defendant, in writing, that the lease of the first defendant is in respect of the portion of the upper flat at premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata and not anything more. Mr. Ahin Chowdhury for the first and the second defendants contends that, the lease deed describes a verandah and that the verandah described in the lease deed is the entirety of the verandah overlapping the two premises. He further contends that, there is no mention of porch in the deed of lease. To my mind, the verandah described in the lease deed dated June 18, 1971 and demised in favour of the contesting defendants by such lease deed must mean the extent of the verandah which Lila Mohan Singh Roy was legitimately entitled to. It is nobody’s case that Lila Mohan Singh Debi was claiming any right, title and interest in respect of any part or portion of the verandah which fell into the area of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata. The next contention of Ahin Chowdhury that, the plaintiff did not establish the date of the alleged trespass and/or encroachment does not appeal to me. The plaintiff has established by evidence that, the contesting defendants are in occupation of a part of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata. The contesting defendants trace their right to occupy a portion of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata through the deed of lease dated June 18, 1971 being Exhibit ‘E.’ The contesting defendants are not claiming right to occupy any portion of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata by adverse possession. The contesting defendants trace their right to occupy a portion of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata through the deed of lease dated June 18, 1971 being Exhibit ‘E.’ The contesting defendants are not claiming right to occupy any portion of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata by adverse possession. They are claiming to occupy through Exhibit ‘E’ being the deed of lease. The lessor did not have any right, title and interest in respect of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata for the lessor to put the contesting defendants into possession of any portion of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata. The lessor clarified such position in the subsequent documents that he executed, namely, the agreement for sale being Exhibit ‘K’ and the conveyance being Exhibit ‘L.’ Exhibit ‘L’ is a deed of conveyance between the lessor and the fourth defendant. The conveyance between the fourth defendant and the fifth defendant is not on record. The fifth defendant has, therefore, accepted the demarcation of premises No. 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata given by the lessor. The fifth defendant and the first defendant are under common management of the same group of persons. Being under the same management the acceptance of such demarcation of such lessor by the fifth defendant is an acceptable of such demarcation by the first defendant also. In any event, it is not for the first defendant to question the demarcation of the ownership right of its lessor. Siromani & Another (supra) does not allow a deed of partition not registered under the Registration Act, 1908 to be looked into for the purpose of finding out partition. Mr. Ahin Chowdhury submits that, Exhibit ‘D’ cannot be looked into to find out the demarcation between the premises Nos. 3A and 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata. I am not looking into Exhibit ‘D’ to find out the demarcation between the two premises. The demarcation of the two premises appears from Exhibits B, E, K and L. A Special Officer was appointed to find out the area that the contesting defendants are in occupation of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata. The Special Officer submitted his report which is marked as Exhibit ‘P.’ Exhibit ‘P’ shows the area of trespass by the contesting defendants. The Special Officer submitted his report which is marked as Exhibit ‘P.’ Exhibit ‘P’ shows the area of trespass by the contesting defendants. On a finding being arrived at, that, the contesting defendants occupied areas beyond the extent of the demise by the deed of lease being Exhibit ‘E’ the date of the encroachment, in absence of a defence of adverse possession, the manner and method of the encroachment and the acts subsequent to the encroachment becomes irrelevant. In view of the discussions above the first five issues settled on April 8, 2014 are answered in favour of the plaintiff. To my understanding the sixth issue was not pressed at the time of hearing. So far as the seventh issue is concerned, trespass and illegal encroachment committed by the contesting defendants are continuing wrongs. The contesting defendants traced their right to occupy portions of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata through the deed of lease. They cannot question the extent of title of their lessor as the lessee. In such circumstances, in my view, there is no question of limitation. The eighth issue was not pressed at the hearing. So far as the ninth issue is concerned, the plaintiff will be entitled to a decree for recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of the portions of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata in possession of the contesting defendants as stated in Exhibit ‘P.’ So far as the quantification of mesne-profit is concerned the claim of the plaintiff is Rs. 50/- per square feet per day for every day for the three years preceding the date of commencement of the suit. Such claim for mesne-profit of the plaintiff being reasonable considering the location of the property, is allowed. The plaintiff will be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on and from December 20, 1982 being the date when the plaint was presented and admitted until realization on the sum of Rs. 54,750/- from the defendants. The plaint was admitted on December 20, 1982. The plaintiff will be entitled to mesne-profit at such rate as may be determined by the Special Referee for the period from December 21, 1982 till the plaintiff obtains vacant possession of the encroached portion from the contesting defendants. Mr. 54,750/- from the defendants. The plaint was admitted on December 20, 1982. The plaintiff will be entitled to mesne-profit at such rate as may be determined by the Special Referee for the period from December 21, 1982 till the plaintiff obtains vacant possession of the encroached portion from the contesting defendants. Mr. Sondwip Mukherjee, Advocate is appointed as the Special Referee to quantify the mesne-profit payable by the defendants to the plaintiff for the illegal encroachment of the defendants into a portion of premises No. 3A, Albert Road, Kolkata for the period as stated herein. The parties will co-operate the Special Referee in computing the mesne-profit as aforesaid. The plaintiff will extend all secretarial assistance and other assistance that the Special Referee may require to undertake the computation of mesne-profit as directed herein. The Special referee will be entitled to a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff at the first instance. The Special Referee will complete the exercise and will file his report when the suit will appear for consideration of the same under the heading ‘For Hearing’ in the monthly list of January 2015. The plaintiff will be entitled to realize the costs incurred for the purpose of computation of the mesne-profit from the defendants. In addition thereto the plaintiff will be entitled to costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the defendants as costs of the suit. The department will draw up and complete the decree as expeditiously as possible.