GUMAN SINGH Vs. PYARELAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff's father, a malgujar, permitted the defendant to build temples on a plot in the plaintiff's village. The lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiff's father granted on express license to build the temples and as the defendant on the faith of that license constructed work of a permanent character and spent about Rs. 1,500, the license cannot now be revoked. The suit for possession of the plot was, therefore, dismissed.

(2.) IN appeal it is first urged that the defendant pleaded a gift and there was no issue regarding a license. There was a clear issue: Did the defendant construct the temples on the site with the consent of plaintiff's father?

(3.) IT is next urged that the plaintiff by a notice, dated 6th August 1923, revoked the license, at a time when the defendant. had done little work and the plaintiff was entitled to revoke the license, but it is quite clear that the defendant had incurred considerable expense on the work of building the temple before the notice was given. The reasoning in Vithaldas v. Goma A.I.R. 1924 Nag. 254 will apply when part only of the work is completed at the time the licensor desires to revoke the license. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Costs on appellant.