Judgement

Appeal (No. 56 of 1934) from a decree of the High Court (April 10, 1930) affirming a decree of the District Judge of Ahmedabad (April 29, 1926), which reversed the decree of the Joint Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad (November 30, 1925).

The question in this appeal was whether the respondent cotton mill company were entitled to the use of a railway siding running from the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway to the respondents property across the adjoining property of the appellant cotton mill company.

The respondent company alleged (inter alia) that on the facts of the case there was an implied grant to them of the use of the portion of the siding passing through the appellants land, and that the appellant company were estopped from contesting the grant in view of the fact that the respondent company had spent a large amount of money in the construction and maintenance of the portion of the siding on their own land.

The facts appear fully from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Joint Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit upon the ground that the respondent company had laid their case as one of co-ownership of the siding, and that effect could not be given to any other form of claim.

Upon appeal, the District Judge gave effect, by injunction, to the right claimed by the present respondents.

An appeal to the High Court (Marten C.J. and Murphy J.) was dismissed. Marten C.J. held that the present respondents had been given a license within the meaning of ss.52 and 54 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, and that it was irrevocable under s. 60 (6) of that Act. Murphy J., in a separate concurring judgment, took the same view, and held that the license had become irrevocable because the licensee had been allowed to put up permanent structures.

1935. Nov. 11, 12. Upjohn K.C., and Parikh for the appellant company.

Gavin Simonds K.C., and Sir Thomas Strangman for the respondent company.

The relevant contentions as to license and irrevocability are set out in the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

Dec. 6. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD MAUGHAM. The appellant company—the Gujrat Ginning and Manufacturing Company, Ld.—appeal from an injunction granted by the District Judge at Ahmedabad, and affirmed by the High Court of Bombay, restraining them from interfering with the passage of railway wagons between the respondents land and the line of the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway upon railway lines laid down in the appellants premises. Part of the order complained of requires the appellants to replace certain rails which they had taken up. The suit was brought by the Motilal Hirabhai Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Company, Ld. (the respondents), in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad on June 29, 1923. The trial judge had dismissed the suit.

Law. Rep. 63 Ind. App. 140 ( 1935- 1936) Gujrat Ginning and Manufacturing C ompany V. Motilal Hirabhai 218

A third company, the Gujrat Spinning and Weaving Company, Ld., has to be referred to, and, as its name is very similar to the name of the appellants, it will be referred to in this judgment as " the third company." The three companies just mentioned appear all to have been engaged in cotton manufacture, but it is not possible to form an opinion whether, and if so how far, they were rivals in business, or were in the habit of assisting one another, or were independent altogether.

In 1903 the three companies had for a long time been managed by the same firm of managing agents, and from before that year until his death in 1913 the individual who in fact managed the affairs of all three companies was one Mansukhbhai. On his death in that year, leaving an infant son, the business of all three companies was in fact managed by his brother and partner, Jamnabhai, until 1922, when Jamnabhai retired. Different agents were then appointed for the respondents and for the appellants, and in 1923 the present suit, and another suit to be hereafter mentio