The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between a license and a lease, and the application of section 60 of the Easements Act in property disputes.

1. These second appeals arise out Of two connected suits brought by the same person in the District Munsiffs Court of Cranganore, O. S. 79 of 1122 and O. S. 80 of 1122. Two adjoining shop buildings and the sites on which they stand formed the subject-matter of dispute in these suits. O. S. 79 of 1122 related to the southern of the two buildings and its site, and O. S. 80 of 1122 to the northern building and its site. Plaintiff is the widow and sole heir of one Venkiteswara Prabhu, who died in Meenom 1121. Her case in each of the two suits was that the shop in respect of which that suit was filed was leased by her deceased husband to the defendant therein for a monthly rent of Rs. 5/- and the latter had defaulted to pay the rent from Karkatagom 1121 and also failed to execute a fresh lease deed in her favour in spite of her demand and that she was therefore entitled to recover possession of the shop and its site from him. Alternatively she claimed in each suit that she was entitled to recover possession of the property on the strength of her husband's title which had devolved on her after his death. One Kunhikayi was the defendant in O. S. 79 of 1122 and the lease in his favour was alleged to have been granted by the deceased Venkiteswara Prabhu on 28-5-1121. Raya Prabhu was the defendant in O. S. 80 of 1122 and the lease in his favour was said to have been granted on 15-5-1115. Both these persons entered appearance in their respective suits and filed written statements contesting the plaintiff's claim. Each of them denied the lease mentioned in the respective plaint and stated that he was in possession of the shop mentioned therein under a lease from one Venkiteswara Pai and that the said Venkiteswara Pai should also be impleaded in the suit. Venkiteswara Pai was thereupon impleaded as additional second defendant in both suits. After he was impleaded, he entered appearance in both suits and contended inter alia that at his request the deceased Venkiteswara Prabhu, who was his uncle's son, had given the sites to him permanently and without rent and also agreed that he might construct two shops therein at his own cost, that he had accordingly built the shops at his own cost and leased one of them to Kunhikayi and the other to Raya Prabhu, and that the plaintiff was not, therefore, competent to recover possession of the plaint properties in the two suits. On the consent of parties, the learned Munsiff tried the two suits together, and though he found against the leases, set up in the plaints, he held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the properties and decreed both suits allowing eviction as prayed for subject to payment of the value of the shops, to be fixed in execution, to the second defendant. On the strength of section 60 of the Cochin Easements Act, XXII of 1112, the second defendant's counsel had contended before the learned Munsiff that the plaintiff could not recover possession of the properties since, acting upon the license which the deceased Venkiteswara Prabhu had granted to him, the second defendant had executed works of a permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution. The Munsiff repelled that contention holding that there was no evidence of such a license having been granted by the deceased Venkiteswara Prabhu and that at best it could only be said that Venkiteswara Prabhu had given the land to the second defendant reserving the right to himself to recover it from him at any time. From the decrees in the two suits, appeals were filed in the District Court of Anjikaimal by Venkiteswara Pai as well as Kunhikayi and Raya Prabhu. Venkiteswara Pai's appeals were A. S. Nos. 235 and 236 of 1123, and the appeals of Kunhikayi and Raya Prabhu were A. S. Nos. 240 and 241 of 1123 respectively. The learned District Judge also heard all these appeals together. The only point that was pressed before him was that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the properties