SEWARAM RAGHUNATH MALI Vs. SWAMI ATMANAND GURU NIRBHAYANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONLY question involved in this second appeal is whether the licence of the Defendant had or had not become irrevocable in view of the provisions of Section 60 of the Indore Easement Act which is identical with the Indian Act on the subject. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:

(2.) THE Plaintiff held a Pattedari land in Mauza Dongargaon bearing Khasra No. 177 measuring 0.66 acres. At the time of filing of this suit on 16 -8 -1947 the land stood in Plaintiff's name in the revenue records. The Plaintiff, in order to protect himself from the acts of trespass of 'Banda Gavalis' of Mhow and their cattle upon his field resulting in damage and loss to his produce, introduced one Sadhu named Bhajan Guru who constructed a hut and developed a garden there on a piece of land measuring 0.2 acres as described in the plaint. After his death on 20 -11 -1938 the Plaintiff introduced the Defendant in that hut and permitted the Defendant to have the use of the adjoining well. The Defendant repaired the well and constructed two rooms of permanent character up to 1944 -45. The Defendant got along well and did not assert his right. In that year he began to challenge Plaintiff's right to the property and claimed exclusive right in himself. The Plaintiff therefore moved the revenue department for securing his ejectment. There the Defendant put forward his possession under an agreement of sale. The Plaintiff thereupon gave him a notice to vacate revoking the licence and filed the present suit for ejectment. The Defendant in answer to the Plaintiff's claim, based on his own title and the position of the Defendant whose licence had been revoked, denied Plaintiff's title to the land and the property situated thereon including the cottage, well and garden. He asserted that he was in possession of the land as the chela of Bhajan Guru and was entitled to tack on his possession to that of his Guru. He pleaded adverse possession and bar of limitation and lastly he contended that he had spent about Rs. 3,000 in constructing certain rooms to the knowledge of the Plaintiff. He denied his status as a licensee and pleaded in the alternative that the licence had become irrevocable inasmuch as he had made improvements of permanent character worth Rs. 3,000.

(3.) ON appeal the learned District Judge reversed the decision holding that although the Defendant had been rightly held to be a licensee the licence had become irrevocable due to his having acted upon the licence and executing works upon the property of permanent character. According to the learned Judge it made no difference whatever whether the Defendant spent his own money or spent money secured by him as contribution in charity from other people. He accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit with costs.