A license is inherently personal and revocable. It becomes irrevocable only when a licensee, acting strictly within the scope of the permission, executes permanent work and incurs expenses. Unauthorized construction or investments unrelated to the scope of the license do not confer proprietary interests or bar recovery of possession.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Sections 52 and 60(b) - Indian Evidence Act - Section 116 - Suit for mandatory and permanent injunction - Possession of property - Claim of joint family funds and family settlement - Registered sale deed established absolute ownership - Licensee status - Irrevocability of license. (Paras 1, 3, 52, 66, 70)

(B) Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Section 60(b) - Irrevocability of license - Requirements for - Doctrine of irrevocability of a license is of limited application and requires cumulative existence of three conditions: execution of permanent work, acting upon the license, and incurring of expenses - Mere existence of construction or expenditure, even if substantial, is insufficient to render license irrevocable. (Paras 69, 71, 72, 75)

(C) Suit for injunction simpliciter - When maintainable - In the absence of a cloud on title, a suit for injunction for possession against a permissive user is maintainable - A mere denial of title without foundation does not create a cloud on title. (Paras 62, 63)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were in possession of a property, claiming it was purchased through common family funds and later distributed via an oral family settlement. The respondent, relying on a registered deed, asserted absolute ownership and sought recovery of possession, contending that the possession by the appellants was merely permissive.

Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence substantiating the claim of common family funds or an oral family settlement. Evidence indicated that the possession of the appellants was permissive in nature, and as the registered document of the owner was not challenged, the right to recover possession upon termination of the license was upheld.

Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of a suit for injunction without seeking a declaration of title in view of the alleged title disputes, and whether the license granted to the appellants had become irrevocable under the statutory provisions due to permanent construction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a license is essentially a personal and a non-proprietary right, revocable at the instance of the grantor, unless specific statutory criteria are met. Since the construction was unauthorized and not referable to the permissive use, the plea of irrevocability lacked merit, and the injunction was rightly granted.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2023 whereby the learned ADJ in RCA DJ No. 99/2019, has upheld the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2019 of the learned Civil Judge, whereby the suit for Mandatory and Permanent Injunction was decreed against the Defendants, who were directed to deliver the possession of the Suit property, to the plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff, Prabhat, filed the Suit bearing No. 96065/16 for Mandatory and Permanent Injunction against the Defendants, namely Puran Chand, Kundan Lal, Devi Dayal and Dhanna Ram, for directing Defendant No. 1 to deliver possession of the suit property, and for restraining the Defendants from creating any third-party interest in the suit property.

3. The Plaintiff claimed that he was the absolute owner of the Property bearing No. C-57, comprising of ground floor and first floor with entire build up portion, located in Shiv Gali, Nanak Chand Basti, Kotla MubarakPur, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Property”), by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated 16.01.1966.

4. The Defendant No. 1, Puran Chand being the brother of the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 2 Sh. Kundan Lal and 3 being his sons, were permitted by the Plaintiff to stay in the Suit Property, as they were not well off. Subsequently, Defendant No. 2, had been staying in the Suit Property.

5. Defendant No. 4-Dhanna Ram also being the brother of the Plaintiff, was staying in a portion of the Suit Property, but Defendant No. 4 is a proforma party and no relief was claimed against him.

6. The Plaintiff despite making every endeavour to persuade the Defendants No. 1 to 3 to vacate the premises, was not successful in doing so as they were adamant and had dishonest intention to retain the property of the Plaintiff.

7. It was further asserted that Defendant No. 1 owns a property bearing No. C-157, Shyam Gali, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi and is earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month, while he is occupying the property of the Plaintiff as a permissive user.

8. Left with no option, Plaintiff sent a Legal Notice dated 13.02.2007, to which an absolutely false and frivolous Reply dated 22.02.2007, had been sent by Defendants.

9. Thus, Plaintiff filed the Suit for Mandatory Injunction for directing the Defendants No. 1 to 3 to vacate the Suit Premises and for Permanent Injunction to restrain them from creating any third party rights in the Suit Property.

10. The Defendants Nos. 1 to 3, in their Written Statement, stated that the Plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 1 and 4 are real brothers, the Plaintiff being the eldest. Upon the demise of their father, the parties, then young, continued as members of a joint family and started earning at a young age.

11. All the three brothers were earning and as the family grew and some income was generated, the family needed shelter and all the brothers from the common pool/funds, purchased the land admeasuring 45 sq. yards bearing C-57, Shiv Gali, Nanak Chand Basti, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi and later, raised the construction through their common funds.

12. As the family expanded, the need of another house arose and plot No. C-93, admeasuring 50 sq. yards, Shiv Gali, Nanak Chand Basti, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi was purchased, from the common funds of all the brothers. Since Plaintiff was the eldest and other brothers had great regard for him, both the plots were purchased in the name of the Plaintiff and thereafter, they never felt any need or necessity to mutate the properties or transfer or partition the said properties.

13. Since the very beginning, all the brothers remained and lived in a joint family; as the family expanded, Plaintiff shifted to nearby property, i.e. Plot No. C-93, admeasuring 50 sq. yards, Shiv Gali, Nanak Chand Basti, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi. There was n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6592

Cases Referred (11)