The judgment establishes the importance of demonstrating a dominant tenement for claiming an easement, the definition of a license under the Indian Easements Act, and the requirements for establishing estoppel by acquiescence.

1. The suit which has led to this second appeal was by the appellant, a bank, for a mandatory injunction to the respondent, a church, to restore an inscription on a 'cupola' or edifice erected by the former on the courtyard of the latter and presented to it. The appellant failed in the two courts below and in support of this second appeal three contentions were pressed, first, that the respondent had made a grant to the appellant of a right of easement to maintain the inscription in tact, second, that the appellant had obtained a licence to do so which is not revocable and third, that the respondent is estopped by acquiescence from setting up a right to efface the inscription.

2. The facts necessary to understand these contentions alone need be stated. The appellant constructed the edifice with an inscription containing its name and the date of erection being, "erected by Irinjalakuda Bank Ltd. on November 29,1936" in English and Malayalam, which was accepted by the respondent. After some years not long before the date of the institution of the suit, the respondent effaced the inscription and this furnished the cause of action for the suit. The two courts have concurrently found against the plea of the appellant, that there was an undertaking by the respondent to retain the inscription for all time. This finding was challenged and I was taken through the evidence, afforded, by Ext. C, the resolution passed by the appellant sanctioning the construction of the edifice, by Ext. I(a) the resolution of the respondent accepting the presentation, and by the deposition of Pw. 3, the vicar of the respondent at the material time. The resolutions do no more than refer to the inscription by way of description and no undertaking by the respondent to maintain it for all time could be spelled from them. Moreover, Pw. 3 has explained, that the parties did not advert to their legal rights to maintain or to efface the inscription. In these circumstances no exception can be taken in second appeal to the concurrent findings on the point.

3. It was then contended, that the right to maintain the inscription is in the nature of an easement, such as a "right to place an advertisement on land or to place a sign post on a common" which is mentioned as an instance of positive or affirmative or assertive easement by Katiar on Law of Easements and Licences, 1959 Edition, at page 52. It is also observed in Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Volume XII, page 613, Para.1332, that there may be an easement entitling the owner to erect and maintain on the soil of a common a sign post relating to his tavern, to affix and maintain a similar sign board on the wall .... to place advertisement boards on another's land ...."

But the law is clear and positive, that in order to constitute an easement it is essential that there must be a dominant and a servient tenement. Quoting Lord Cairns, in Rangeley v. Midland Ry. (1868) 3 Ch. App. 306, 310-311) and Lord Coleridge, C.J. in Hawkins v. Butter (1892) 1 Q.B. 668, 671), Gale on Easements 13th Edition, page 7, sets out the following passages:

"There can be no easement properly so called unless there is both a servient and a dominant tenement. There can be no such thing, according to our law, or according to the civil law, as an easement in gross. An easement must be connected with a dominant tenement."

Katiar observes thus at page 76:

"One of the essential features of an easement is that it should be associated with two tenements or heritages, namely, the dominant tenement to which the right of easement is appurtenant and the servient tenement, in or upon or over which the right is exercised and a corresponding burden or obligation is imposed. There can be no right of easement without a dominant tenement and a servient tenement... A right of easement is not a right in gross, but a right appurtenant to a dominant tenement. It is inseparably attached to it and cannot be dissociated from it."

In Sri Sri Iswar Go