( 1. ) THIS appeal is filed by the defendant challenging judgment and decree dated 29-7-98 passed by 9th Addl. District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 217-A/96.

( 2. ) BRIEF facts of the case are that a house No. 150/50 is situated at Kudalkar Ki Goth, Kempu, Lashkar, Gwalior. Plaintiff has filed a suit for ejectment in respect of portion of a house which is in possession of the present appellant. According to the plaintiff the said property was initially owned by Vitthal Rao (dead ). Vitthal Rao has four sons namely Madho Rao, Narayan Rao, Gopal Rao and Krishna Rao (all dead ). Madhav Rao has one son Keshav Rao who died in the year 1938. Narayan Raos son Madho Rao died in the year 1941. Keshav Rao has three sons namely Ramchandra Rao, Lakshman Rao, who died on 10-6-69 and Anand Rao who was adopted by Keshav Rao. ( 3. ) RAMCHANDRA Rao filed a Civil Suit No. 29-A/97 for partition. In that case it was held that the suit property exclusively belongs to plaintiff Anand Rao and Ramchandra Rao is in possession of the same as a licensee. This judgment and decree was challenged by the plaintiff by filing F. A. No. 56/80 which was dismissed on 17-9-90 and L. P. A. against the said order was also filed but the order was maintained. Copies of the judgments are on record as Exs. P-l, P-3 and P-4. Thus, it has become final between the parties that plaintiff Anand Rao is the exclusive owner of the suit property and the defendant is in possession of the suit property described in Paragraph 1 of the plaint as a licensee. Defendant Ramchandra Rao was allowed to reside in this house till he construct his own house. According to the plaintiff this condition was violated by the defendant. He has not constructed any house till now. He was permitted to reside in the house all alone but he has permitted his sons and other members to reside in the suit premises and he has also constructed a pakka building in the suit premises without permission of the plaintiff hence his license is revoked.

( 4. ) DEFENDANT filed his written statement stating that he is in possession of the property as a member of joint family and he has a birth right in the property and hence has a right to reside in the suit property as one of the members of co-parceners. According to him he is in possession of the suit property since 1925. He has constructed new rooms in place of old construction within the knowledge of plaintiff and has spent huge amount on construction. According to him since he has constructed a pakka construction the license in his favour has become irrevocable. Trial Court framed two issues and decreed the suit.

( 5. ) SHRI H. D. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant very vehemently urged that since the appellant has made some pakka construction in the suit premises within the knowledge of the plaintiff he has got implied permission for construction and hence the license in his favour has become irrevocable. He also urged that the plaintiff has not raised any objection at the time of construction, hence he is now estopped from revoking the license. He further submitted that the Court below has not properly framed the issues and, therefore, the matter requires to be remanded. Shri H. D. Gupta, in support of his arguments that the license in favour of defendant is irrevocable license has relied on Section 60 of the Easement Act. Said section reads as under:-License when revocable.-- A license may be revoked by the grantor, unless- (a) it is coupled with a transfer of property and such transfer is in force; (b) the licensee, acting upon the license, has executed a work of a permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution.

( 6. ) ACCORDING to Shri Gupta, since he is a licensee and has raised a pakka construction in the suit premises, the licence in his favour has become irrevocable.

( 7. ) BY bare reading of Section 60 of the Easements Act it is clear that by getting a irrevocable license it is necessary to plead and prove that the construction