Establishment of an irrevocable license requires clear evidence, failing which the court upholds permissive occupation.

JUDGMENT

These appeals arise out of the concurrent findings in a suit for injunction and in the counterclaim for mandatory eviction.

2. The appellant in the suit contended that he is a licensee under one Thomas Master, who had given the license to his mother to stay in the plaint B schedule house located in the plaint A schedule property in the year 1977, and at that time he was a minor. Later, on becoming a major, he, along with his mother, was staying there and was also permitted to put up permanent structures therein by the 1st defendant and her husband, Thomas Master. Thus, the license had become irrevocable in view of the provisions of Section 60 (b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 . The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the occupation was always permissive and that the plaintiff was given on marriage on 24.5.1992, and subsequently in 1998, the mother of the plaintiff returned back to Idukki and died there. The plaintiff and his family continued to reside in the property since the 1^st defendant requested them to stay along with her due to her old age. Later, at the instance of defendants 2 to 4, attempts were made to evict the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. Hence the suit. In the suit, the defendants raised a counterclaim stating that the plaintiff’s occupation was always permissive and that certain acts had been committed to the detriment of the defendants. Accordingly, they sought for a mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to vacate the premises and put them in occupation. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A60 documents were produced, and PW1 and PW2 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 certified copy of the Will was produced, and DW1 to DW3 were examined. Ext.X1 is the certified copy of the Will produced by the SRO, Kunnamkulam and Ext.X2 is the certified copy of the relevant page of the register of thumb impression produced by the SRO, Kunnamkulam. Exts.C1 and C2 are the reports of the Advocate Commissioner who was examined as CW1. The trial court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was never under any permission from the original licensor to occupy the premises and that even if he had occupied the same, it could only be construed as a permissive one. The plea of the plaintiff that he had put up structures in plaint B schedule was turned down in as much as he could not produce any evidence to substantiate the claim that he had obtained permission from the licensor to effect those constructions. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed, and the counterclaim was decreed by passing a mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to vacate the premises. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred A.S. Nos.70 of 2016 and 71 of 2016 before the Sub Court, Chavakkad and both the appeals were dismissed 4.11.2025. Hence, the present second appeals.

3. Heard Sri. Souradh C. Valson, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. M.M. Madhu, the learned counsel appearing for the

6^th respondent on caveat.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the following submissions.

a. The eviction of the plaintiff/appellant is not sought by the original licensor, but by the siblings of the original licensor, which is impermissible.

b. The court below ought to have framed an issue regarding the title of the counterclaim plaintiffs/defendants in the suit.

c. The original Will was not produced before the court below, and therefore, the mandate of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has not been satisfied.

d. It is further pointed out that after the marriage of the plaintiff, the original licensee, that is, his mother, went away from the property, but she