The main legal point established is the requirement for a written statement to sufficiently plead the existence of an irrevocable license under S.60(b) of the Easements Act, including the nexus between the permission granted and the construction of permanent structures.

The Appellant, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 294/87 in the court of Munsiff , Kannur impugns the validity of the appellate order dated 5th November, 1990 in AS.No. 27/S9 made by the I Addl. Sub Judge, Thalassery by which he reversed the decree for mandatory injunction made by the trial court and remanded the case for trial of the issue whether the respondent holds an irrevocable license under S.60(b) of the Easements Act. The facts necessary for disposal of this petition appear in paragraphs 2, Sand 4 below: The appellant and the respondent are in this judgment referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant respectively.

2. The plaintiff instituted O.S.No. 294/87 in the court of the Munsiff, Kannur. She claimed decree for a mandatory injunction that the defendant/ respondent herein, shall remove the shed used as pump house and the water pipes connecting the. well to the defendant's factory. The plaintiff based her title on the assignment dated 1-6-1986 made by Devaki, Nalini, Prasanna and Ashokan who were the admitted owners of the land.

There is a well in the land purchased by the plaintiff. The defendant runs a handloom factory in the name of Bharat Textiles. The plaintiffs predecessors-in-title permitted the defendant to take water from the well. The defendant constructed a shed (pump house) and also fixed water pipe lines from the well to the factory. According to the plaintiff the defendant executed this work without the consent or sanction of the plaintiff or the plaintiffs predecessors-in-title. It is this shed and the pipe line that the plaintiff wants to be removed from her property.

3. An English translation of the written statement is filed by counsel for the defendant. Its correctness is not disputed by the plaintiffs counsel. The substance of the written statement relevant to this case is this:

i) The defendant has been using water from the well jointly with the plaintiffs predecessors in title since 1977. "For this purpose a pump set has been installed a pump house constructed and the pipeline was taken along the plaint scheduled property to Bharat Textiles (paragraph 2 of the written statement).

ii) Even when the property was. transferred in favour of the plaintiff this defendant was using the water drawn by the pump set and taken along the pipeline to the defendant's Textile establishment (paragraph 2 of the written statement)

iii) "Devaki and other entitles jointly permitted the defendant to draw water by using pumpset and accordingly it is that the defendant is enjoying the said right", (paragraph 3 of the written statement).

4. The learned trial judge considered all the evidence and came, to the conclusion that the plaintiff has exclusive right to the property including the land on which the pumphouse is situated and over which the pipelines are drawn. He, therefore, granted a mandatory injunction commanding the defendant to remove the pump house and the pipe lines. No issue was framed by the trial court as to whether

(a) the defendant held a license from the owners of the property and

(b) "acting upon the license" the defendant executed the work of erection of the, pump house, a permanent structure and fixed water pipelines and

(c) incurred expenses in such execution.

Consequently, therefore, the question as to whether the defendant was such a licensee within the meaning of clause (b) of S.60 of the Easements Act did not arise for consideration. In appeal suit No. 27 of 1989 filed by the defendant the learned Sub Judge came to the conclusion that all the material required for making out a claim of irrevocable license within the meaning of S.60(b) of the Easements Act, was in the pleadings. According to the learned Sub Judge, the trial judge erroneously assumed that the defendant had not raised the plea of irrevocable license. He, therefore, set aside the decree and remanded the suit for disposal after giving to the parties an opportunity to amend the pleadings and adduce fresh evidence.

5. The question wh