1. The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this plaintiff's second appeal are as under:-

(1) Whether the finding of the 1st appellate court while reversing the well reasoned order passed by the trial court to the extent of granting a right in favour of the defendants for 6 decimals of land is proper, legal and justified?

(2) Whether the finding of the 1st appellate court in creating a right in favour of the appellants by granting benefit under Easement Act to the defendants is proper, legal and justified?

2. With the consent of parties and in light of the submissions made, the substantial questions are re-framed as under:-

Whether the first appellate Court is justified in holding that the license of the defendants has become irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882?

Parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial Court.

3. Original plaintiff Parvati, widow of Udkudi Panara, who died during the pendency of suit, had filed a suit for declaration of her title and permanent injunction stating inter-alia that she was the duly recorded bhoo-dhari of 0.17 acre of land bearing Khasra No. 664 situate in Village Geedam, Tahsil Dantewada, District Bastar. It was further pleaded that on a small portion of the land, she had constructed a residential house and rest of the land was lying vacant and in the year 1968, husband of defendant No. 1 – Indrabhan Singh came to Village Geedam on being transferred as Teacher along with his wife defendant No. 1 and his son defendant No. 2 and hired a house adjacent to the plaintiff's house, and on the request of Indrabhan Singh, he was allowed to raise a temporary mud-made structure for his residence over a small portion of the plaintiff's open land on the specific condition that as and when he will be transferred from Geedam, he would pull down the so raised mud-made temporary superstructure and remove the same at his own costs and leave the land vacant in its original condition which was agreed and consequently, the temporary structure was allowed to be constructed on 0.06 decimal of her land. It is the case of the plaintiff that it was a revocable license in favour of Indrabhan Singh, but before he could be transferred, he died in the year 1978 and according to the plaintiff, temporary and irrevocable license granted to him by the original plaintiff stood revoked by operation of law as provided in clause (f) of Section 62 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (for short, the Act of 1882). It is the further case of the plaintiff that she asked defendants No. 1 & 2 to vacate her land and give possession to her which was refused leading to filing of the instant suit for injunction and recovery of possession.

4. The defendants filed their written statement as well as counter claim before the trial Court stating inter-alia that they are in possession of the suit land by constructing a house and as such they are factually in possession of the entire suit land 0.17 acre and there is hostile intention to possess the suit land and as such, they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Counterclaim was also filed that the defendants have perfected their title on the entire 0.17 acre of land. Written statement and counterclaim was filed on 12-11-1990. By amending written statement on 14-12-1990, the defendants have specifically denied that they are in possession of suit land in the capacity of licensees, rather they insisted that they have perfected their title by adverse possession. However, the trial Court granted them to amend the written statement on 26-7-1995 permitting them to take the plea of irrevocable license based on Section 60(b) of the Act of 1882.

5. The trial Court framed as many as twenty issues including the plea of adverse possession and irrevocable license and ultimately, by its judgment & decree dismissed the suit finding that the plaintiff is title holder of suit land and