This second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S.No.107 of 1999 before the Court of Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit is one for recovery of plaint schedule property and for other reliefs. The trial court dismissed the suit. Appellant challenged the matter in appeal before the lower appellate court. Learned Additional District Judge concurred with the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

3. The substantial question of law arising in this appeal is whether the courts below are justified in holding that the respondent is entitled to possess the licensed premises by invoking Section 60(5) of the Easements Act, 1882?

4. Facts, in brief, relevant are as follows: Appellant is the owner of plaint A schedule property by virtue of Ext.A2 settlement deed and Ext.A3 partition deed. The property originally belonged to his father Ramakrishnan. Ramakrishnan had obtained a licence for constructing a shed in the plaint A schedule property, from Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. As requested by the respondent, appellant's father Ramakrishnan allowed the former to construct a shed in the property as per the