JUDGMENT

M.M.PUNCHHI, J.

(1) THESE two appeals at the instance of the State of Punjab, are directed against a common judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High court, passed in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1719 and 1720 of 1989 and are limited in scope to the determination of title to a double storeyed building situated in a complex known as Jallowkhana in the town of Kapurthala. These appeals have arisen in the following manner.

(2) THE respondent herein is Brigadier Sukhjit Singh. He is the son of Maharaja Paramjit Singh and the grandson of Maharaja Jagatjit Singh in the order of primogeniture succession. The ancestory of Maharaja Jagatjit Singh is traced to Baba Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, the founder of Kapurthala State and the Ahluwalia dynasty. It is common ground that there is a complex known as Jallowkhana at Kapurthala which encompasses two historic havelis, which in the context mean palaces, going by the names Haveli Baba Jassa Singh and Nihal Mahal. Besides these two havelis, there are open spaces and other structures in the complex and the disputed one is a double storeyed building presently in the occupation of State of Punjab through its Public Works Department. The plaintiff-respondent claiming that since the possession of the State of Punjab thereon was permissive in character and in the nature of a licence, and despite his terminating the same the State of Punjab had not vacated the disputed building, he sought relief by way of a suit for mandatory injunction requiring the State of Punjab to vacate the premises, and to keep its hands off from the other properties in the complex over which the plaintiffrespondent was owner in possession.

(3) THE State of Punjab on the other hand disputed the ownership of the plaintiff to the Jallowkhana complex and claimed that the building in dispute belonged to the government and was being maintained by the Public Works Department at State expense since 1947. The possession of plaintiff towards any part of the buildings was denied. It was pleaded that when the princely states in this part of the country merged with the State known as the Patiala and East Punjab State Unions (PEPSU), the rulers of the merging States were required to declare their private properties, but the ruler of the Kapurthala State, however, while declaring his private properties, did not enlist the Jallowkhana complex as part of his private properties. On that analysis it was claimed that the entire Jallowkhana complex was owned by the State.

(4) SINCE there were various pleas on both sides on locus, jurisdiction, limitation, estoppel and maintainability a number of issues were struck on the pleadings of the parties, but we are not concerned with them any more for they stand settled one way or the other so as to steer the suit to its conclusion on title to the properties,

(5) THE trial court on its part partially decreed the suit holding that except the double storeyed building in occupation of the State of Punjab, the remnants in the Jallowkhana complex were owned and possessed by the plaintiff-respondent. It took the view that the State of Punjab had become the owner of the said double storeyed building by lapse of time. It viewed that there was no licence since admittedly no licence fee had ever been paid. Grounding its conclusion solely on that basis it held that even though the common entrance to the double storeyed building as well as to the palaces known as Haveli Baba Jassa Singh and Nihal Mahal through the deorhi was owned by the plaintiff-respondent, still the State of Punjab had a right of passage through it as easement. Similarly it held that the open courtyard in front of the double storeyed building as indicated in the plan, was in the ownership of the plaintiff but the defendant-State had an easement of passage over it. The court however did notice the fact that the State of Punjab had never pleaded alternatively any such eas