This is an appeal by the plaintiffs. They filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of their title to the property. The plaintiffs are four ladies. Admittedly they have got title to the property. The defendants do not dispute the title of the plaintiffs.

2. The first defendant executed an agreement dated 30-5-1970. This agreement is a registered agreement. By virtue of this agreement now the defendants says that the first defendant was put in possession of the suit property as a licensee. It was stipulated in the agreement that the agreement will operate from 1-6-1970 and that for the grant of the licence, the first defendant has to pay Rs. 166.66. The property was given for a definite purpose, viz., to make certain structures for the purpose of running a cinema theatre. The permission was granted for a fixed period, viz., 5 years. The first defendant was thus continuing possession of the property in question. While so, defendants 2 and 3 purchased the right to conduct the cinema theatre from the first defendant. This has happened, according to defendants 2 and 3 on 6-3-1973 and they continued to run the cinema theatre in the suit property.

3. The plaintiffs wanted to revoke the licence and to get back the property free of the obligations under the grant of licence. They filed a suit on 18-11-1976 as O.S.No. 210/76 before the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri. That suit was dismissed on 13-7-1979. An appeal was filed as A.S.No. 119/79. The appeal was allowed and the suit was remanded for fresh disposal by judgment dated 23-1-1980. The remand judgment allowed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint. Thereafter the plaintiffs converted the suit for recovery of the property on the strength of title. Initially the suit was instituted for terminating the licence and for a decree directing the defendants to remove the structures in the property. When once the suit was converted into a suit on title, the Munsiff Court returned the plaint for presenting it before appropriate court. The suit was presented before the Sub Court and there it is numbered as O.S.No.32/80. It has to be noted that before the institution of the suit, the plaintiffs caused a lawyer notice to be sent to the first defendant on 15-9-1976. This notice is Ext.A2. In reply to that notice, the first defendant said that he has transferred the cinema theatre to defendants 2 and 3. Another notice was issued to defendants 2 and 3 on 4-12-1976. This notice is Ext.A3. EXt.A3 is replied by defendants 2 and 3 by Ext.A4. In the suit, defendants 2 and 3 were impleaded on 9-3-1977.

4. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a written statement wherein they contended that they are holding the property under a licence. Their definite case is that after obtaining the ownership of the theatre from the first defendant, they approached the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs agreed for their continuance and also agreed for making permanent structures in the property. In short, the case of defendants 2 and 3 is that the plaintiffs cannot recover possession of the property, since they are holding the property under an irrevocable licence (Section 60(b) of the Easements Act). In order to strengthen this defence, defendants 2 and 3 contended that they executed works of permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution of such works. The definite case of defendants 2 and 3 is that they were permitted by the plaintiffs to make such permanent constructions. Further it is stated that all these things happened by the intervention of mediators and one of the mediators is DW2. The Court below considered the evidence of the case and held that the defendants have proved a case of irrevocable licence in their favour and on that ground, the suit was dismissed. Now the plaintiffs appeal.

5. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding that defendants 2 and 3 were able to establish a case of irrevocable licence under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act is incorrect