Permanent structures are essential for an irrevocable license under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act; temporary constructions do not confer protection against revocation.

EASWARAN S., J --------------------------------

R.S.A No.1076 of 2011 -------------------------------

Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2025

J U D G M E N T

The appellant company aggrieved by the judgment and decree in A.S No.7/2010 on the files of Sub Court, Kattappana, which reversed the dismissal of the suit by the Munsiff’s Court, Peermade, in O.S No.188/2008 has come up in this appeal.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

The 1^st appellant-company granted a licence in favour of the plaintiffs over 18.88 Hectares of land in Survey No.91, 61/2 and 61/3 of Periyar Village in Peermade Taluk, for cardamon plantation, known as Wallardie Estate. The period of licence was for one year with effect from 01.02.2004. During the period of licence, it appears that a request was made by the plaintiffs to the company to put up certain structures in the property. The request was accepted and a communication was issued on 20.04.2004 by the manager of the 1^st appellant-company permitting the plainti certain structures in the property for the purpose of carrying out the agricultural operation. Based on the said permission, the plaintiffs had dug up a small pond for drawing water for the agricultural operations and had constructed a structure, nature of which is disputed seriously by the parties. The plaintiffs claimed that it is of permanent nature, whereas the appellant-company contends that the said construction is temporary in nature. As stated above, the period of licence expired on 01.02.2005. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs continued in possession of the plaint schedule property. While so, the plaintiffs apprehended that their possession over the plaint schedule property will be disturbed by the 1^st appellant- company in as much as there was a notice issued by the company causing to terminate the licence agreement. Therefore, apprehending eviction proceedings, the suit was filed contending that, after the expiry of the period of licence, the plaintiffs were in possession of the plaint schedule property based on an oral lease for a period of 15 years and therefore the defendants had no right to evict the plaintiffs during the currency of the said period. However, the plaintiffs later sought to amend the plaint and incorporate a fresh statement that the continuation of the plaintiffs after the expiry of the period of licence was not on the basis of a lease, but on the extension of the period of licence. It was further pleaded that in view of the permission granted by the 1st defendant-company, the plaintiffs have put up structures in the licensed property, therefore the licence is irrevocable. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit and contended that there is no right of permanency attached to the licence granted in favour of the plaintiffs and that the permission, if any, granted by the 1^st defendant-company is only during the currency of licence agreement. It was further contended that going by the terms and conditions of the licence agreement, as and when the licence is terminated, the licensees are required to remove the structures put up by them and vacate the premises. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A15 documents were produced and PW1 was examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B5 documents were produced and DW1 was examined. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are the report and the plan of the Advocate Commissioner. Exts.X1 and X2 were marked through third party. CW1 to CW4 were exami