Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5311
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
Ganesan
Versus
Sivaperumal @ Arjunan & Others
SA.No.343 OF 2001
Decided On : 08-12-2010
For the Petitioner:V. Raghavachari, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S. Arunachalam, Associates, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the irrevocability of a license under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act, emphasizing the conditions that need to be fulfilled for a license to become irrevocable.
Headnote:
Easement - Water Rights - Section 60 of the Easements Act - [Section 60(b) of the Easements Act] - The court discussed the irrevocability of a license under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act, emphasizing the conditions that need to be fulfilled for a license to become irrevocable. The court highlighted the importance of the licensee executing work of a permanent character, acting upon the license, and incurring expenses in doing so. The judgment emphasized that the grant of a license may be express or implied, and in this case, the pipelines laid by the plaintiff were considered permanent in nature, and the plaintiff had incurred expenses in execution, thus making the license irrevocable. The court also referred to relevant case law to support its interpretation of the legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of water rights and permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff claimed to have obtained permission to lay pipelines beneath the defendants' lands and had incurred expenses in doing so. The defendants denied granting permission and claimed that the pipelines were laid by them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had laid pipelines permanently beneath the defendants' lands, acting upon a license granted by the defendants' vendors. The court held that the license had become irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act, as the conditions for irrevocability were fulfilled. The court concluded that the defendants, as transferees of the grantor, could not revoke the license.
Issues: The issues revolved around the permission to lay pipelines beneath the defendants' lands, the irrevocability of the license under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act, and the rights of the plaintiff as the licensee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 60(b) of the Easements Act, which outlines the conditions for the irrevocability of a license. The court emphasized the importance of the licensee executing work of a permanent character, acting upon the license, and incurring expenses in doing so. The court also relied on relevant case law to support its interpretation of the legal provisions.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the first appellate court were set aside, restoring the judgment and decree of the trial court. The court held that the defendants, as transferees of the grantor, could not revoke the irrevocable license granted to the plaintiff.
The appellant herein/plaintiff has filed the suit in OS.NO.35/1999 for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to take water through the pipelines laid beneath the lands of the respondents herein/defendants in S.NO.177/10 and 183 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff from taking water and for costs.
2. The case of the Plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows:-
a. The property in S.NO.177/7 to an extent of 1 acre 15 cents, the property in S.No.177/6 to an extent of 72 cents and the property in S.No.177/9 to an extent of 70 cents and 62 cents in S.No.177/9 originally belonged to one Ganapathi Pillai. The said Ganapathi Pillai sold the same in favour of one Annamalai Pillai under the sale deed dated 5.11.1965. An extent of 2 acres and 80 cents in S.NO.177/9 originally belonged to one Perumal Pillai, who settled the same in favour of one Settu by virtue of the settlement deed dated 19.7.72 along with the right in the well and trees thereon. In pursuance of the settlement deed, Settu was put in possession and enjoyment of the same. The above said Settu and Annamalai Pillai sold the properties along with the right in the well and trees to the plaintiffs father Rajupillai on 1.12.73. Ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiffs father was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same and thus, he perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession also.
b. On 12.8.1980, the father of the plaintiff Rajupillai executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was put in possession and enjoyment of the same. At the time of settlement deed, the well in S.No.177/9 had become dilapidated and so, the plaintiff dug up a new well in S.NO.177/9 for irrigating the other portion of the land in the same survey number. Since the S.No.177/9 is an irregular shape, for convenient enjoyment, the plaintiff approached the defendants to permit him to take water through a pipeline embedded in S.No.177/10 and 183 which belonged to the defendants. The defendants also gave permission as early as in 1981 for the plaintiff to lay pipeline beneath the lands in S.No.177/10 and 183. Thereafter, the plaintiff spent about Rs.50,000/-even in the year 1981 to lay pipe line. The plaintiff obtained electricity connection with a Motor pump set in S.No.177/9 which is standing in the name of the sister of the plaintiff. While so, the defendants who owned lands on the southern side of the land of the plaintiff started giving trouble and tried to remove the pipeline laid underneath the land of the Defendants. If the defendants are allowed to remove the pipelines, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable hardship and loss. Hence, the suit has been filed.
3. In the Written Statement filed by the 1st defendant adopted by the defendants 2 and 3, it is averred as follows:-a. The plaintiff never approached the defendants to permit him to take water through a pipe line beneath the lands in S.No.177/10 and 183. The defendants never permitted the plaintiff to lay pipeline. The pipeline which runs beneath the land in S.No.177/10 and 183 was laid by the defendants only. Since, the northern portion of the said land is in a higher level, the pipeline runs only upto the boundaries of the defendants land and in S.NO.177/10 and not extended to the land of the plaintiff. It is false to contend that the plaintiff obtained service connection for the suit well and the contention of the plaintiff that he had spent Rs.50,000/- to lay pipeline is false. Since, the plaintiff filed another suit against the defendants in OS.No.469/98, which is pending and there is no merits in that case, the plaintiff has filed this false claim as if the defendants permitted the plaintiff to take water through the pipeline beneath the lands of the defendants. Further, the defendants contended that the plaintiff never took water from the existing pipeline and he has no right over the suit pipeline also and h
