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