A mere license is revocable, but a license coupled with a grant of an interest in nature of property is not revocable.

JUDGMENT :- This is the sole defendant's second appeal from the confirming decision dated 19-9-64 of Sri D. Hota, 5th Additional Subordinate Judge, passed in T. A. No. 155/64.

2. The suit was for eviction of the defendant from the suit-land of 0.032 decimals in extent with a house standing thereon, appertaining to C. S. Plot No. 149 of Khata No. 42 situated in Cuttack Municipality Ward No. 7 bearing holding No. 244 and for delivery of Khas possession thereof to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claimed relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff after eviction from the suit-land.

3. The plaintiffs case is that the suit-land originally belonged to Janardan Panda, grandfather of plaintiff-1. One Chintamani Panda, adoptive father of defendant Biswanath Panda, is the sister's son of the said Janardan Panda. This Chitamani became an orphan at an early age. His father had left him a destitute by selling away all the family properties. Janardan his maternal uncle, out of compassionate grounds took upon himself the responsibility of rearing him up. He, therefore, took Chintamani into his house brought him up and got him married and allowed him to reside in the suit house. He was occupying the said house till his death on 20-11-60. He left his widow Radhamani and the present defendant Biswanath Panda his adopted son as his heirs. Janardan died in 1955. His son Jagaranath had predeceased him. So at the time of his death, his grandson, plaintiff-1 and his daughter-in-law, plaintiff-2, were alive and succeeded to his property including the suit-premises. The plaintiffs wanted the suit-land and the house standing thereon for themselves. So they sent a registered notice on 1-10-60 through their advocate demanding that the defendant should vacate the premises by the end of December, 1960. There was no reply to this notice.

4. The original defendant was Radhamani Debi, the widow of Chintamani Panda. During the pendency of the suit she died and the present defendant the adopted son of Biswanath was, by an order of the Court dated 20-8-1963, substituted in place of the original defendant Radhamani Dibya. The original defendant Radhamani Dibya filed a written statement on 13-7-61. The present defendant, the adopted son of Chintamani Panda, filed another written statement on 19-9-1963.

5. The plea of the substituted defendant in substance, was that the suit-property was purchased by late Chintamani under an oral sale for a consideration of Rs. 50/- from the original owner about forty years ago. In pursance of that sale Chintamani took delivery of possession of the suit-land. Thereafter Chintamani constructed a permanent building with latrine and well with his own money and acquired the status of a permanent tenant under the landlord Sri Laxminarayan Thakur. The landlord demanded exorbitant sum of money for mutating his name which he was unwilling and unable to pay. He did not, therefore, proceed any further in the matter of mutation as he was closely related to the transferor who was his maternal uncle. He further says that Chitamani went on paying the rent and getting rent-receipts in the name of original owner Janardan in the current settlement of 1931 and he was recorded to be in possession as Pattadar under the landlord in the record of rights. Chintamani's possession, therefore, was in his own right.

6. The defendant raised an alternative plea of acquisition of occupancy right by adverse possession. In regard to this plea, it is stated that Chintamani after him, his widow Radhamani, and after her the present defendant being in continuous and peaceful possession for more than last forty years ousting the plaintiffs and their predecessor's an indefeasible right to the suit-property has been acquired by such adverse possession.

7. The main question that was considered by the trial Court and also by the lower appellate court is if Chintamani Panda was merely a licensee as asserted by