Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The Supreme Court of India held that the license granted by Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava to the Bishun Narain School was irrevocable because the school, acting upon the license, executed works of a permanent character and incurred expenses in doing so, satisfying Section 60(b) of the Easements Act, 1882 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The Court emphasized that pleadings should receive a liberal construction; although the defendants did not explicitly use the phrase "acting upon the license," the substance of their written statement clearly raised the plea that they made permanent constructions in pursuance of the license, and the trial court and High Court correctly considered this issue (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The defendants had duly pleaded in their written statement that the school had made substantial additions and alterations, incurred heavy expenses, and that the license was permanent and irrevocable, which was sufficient to meet the requirement of pleading under the Civil Procedure Code (!) (!) .
• Evidence produced by the defendants, including witness testimonies and expenditure vouchers, established that the school constructed three classrooms, latrines, and urinals on the open land, thereby fulfilling the conditions for an irrevocable license under Section 60(b) (!) .
• The conduct of the grantor, Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava, who continued to be the President of the school and did not object to the constructions for decades, supported the inference that the license was intended to be irrevocable and coupled with the purpose of running the school (!) (!) (!) .
• The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the license was revocable merely because it was not explicitly stated in a written document, holding that terms and conditions could be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties (!) .
• The appellant's claim that Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava, as Karta of a joint family, could not grant a permanent license without consent of minor co-sharers was dismissed, as no objection was raised by any family member and the license was for a charitable purpose (education) (!) .
• The Court noted that evicting the school would likely result in the closure of the educational institution, which would be against public interest, further supporting the decision to uphold the irrevocability of the license (!) .
• The appeal filed by Ram Sarup Gupta (the appellant) was dismissed, affirming the judgment of the High Court and the trial court that the school had a right to continue occupying the property under the irrevocable license (!) (!) (!) .