1/21 1 SA 574.96.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SECOND APPEAL NO.574 OF 1996

Ratnagiri Zilla Khadi Sangh.

..

Applicant

Versus

Govindrao Korgaonkar Dharmadaya

Sansta through Anil Prabhakarpant

Koregaonkar & Ors.

..

Respondent

…

Mr. Sachin Shetye for the applicant.

Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the respondent.

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATED : 26^th APRIL, 2022

JUDGMENT:-

1.

The second appeal came to be admitted on 30/04/1997, on

the following substantial question of law:-

“(i) If the transaction is a licence, then what is the

nature of right conferred upon the licencee under

section 60(b) of the Easements Act, 1952?

(ii) Whether the protection of Section 60(b) of the

Easement Act is available in the case of oral licence

and the necessary facts can be gathered from the

purpose for which the licence is granted coupled with

the conduct of the parties and the circumstances

surrounding it?

(iii) Whether it is permissible for the court to look into

Ashish Mhaske

2/21 1 SA 574.96.doc

the documents furnished and returns filed by the

licencee-public trust with the charity Commissioner

for the purposes of ascertaining the nature of work

executed by it?”

2.

Learned Counsel Mr. Shetye has also furnished two

additional questions of law which arises in the appeal and the

same are accepted as a substantial question of law to the

following effect:

a)

Whether the Courts below were right in law in

holding that the defendant was a licencee in the suit

land when there was no instrument or document

produced by the Plaintiff disclosing the relations

between the parties?

b)

Whether the Courts below were right in holding

that the Defendant was a licencee, ignoring the

admitted fact that there was no document executed

between the parties, no terms in clear words about the

possession of the suit land which was in exclusive

possession of the Defendant from the year 1947 and

also in view of the admitted fact that the Defendant

was allowed by the Plaintiff to construct the structure

in the suit premises?

3.

On the paper book being filed, the appeal is taken up for

hearing.

Ashish Mhaske

3/21 1 SA 574.96.doc

Heard Adv. Sachin Shetye for the appellant and Adv. N.V.

Bandiwadekar for the respondent no.1, since he was the only

contesting respondent before the trial Court.

Special Civil Suit No. 3 of 1982, came to be instituted by

the plaintiff Shri. Govindrao Koragaonkar Dharmadaya Sanstha

through its managing trustees Shri. Anilrao Korgaonkar, resident

of Kolhapur, against Ratnagiri Zilla Khadi Sangh Goupuri

Ashram Kankavali District, Ratnagiri, another Public Trust being

impleaded as defendant no.1. The suit was filed for a possession

of two pieces of land bearing survey No.18/1 and 31/1 situated

within village Waghade, Tahsil Kankavali, District Sindhudurg,

specifically described in para 5 of the plaint. The plaintiff claim

to be the owner of the suit property and there was also a

reference to survey no. 18/2, which is not the suit property but it

is alleged that all three parcels of land where owned by the

plaintiff trust.

4.

The plaintiff pleaded that one Appasaheb Patwardhan, who

had devoted himself in public welfare and undertook

development of agricultural activity in Konkan area and had

deep interest in research in the agricultural field, intended that

the research will help the agriculturist in Ratnagiri district to

improve the potential value of their land. The plaintiff was

associated with Appasaheb Patwardhan and, therefore, decided

to hand over the said land to him to carry out his research. The

plaintiff, however, sold la