http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 16

PETITIONER:

RAM SARUP GUPTA (DEAD) BY LRS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

BISHUN NARAIN INTER COLLEGE & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/04/1987

BENCH:

SINGH, K.N. (J)

BENCH:

SINGH, K.N. (J)

MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

CITATION:

1987 AIR 1242 1987 SCR (2) 805

1987 SCC (2) 555 JT 1987 (2) 76

1987 SCALE (1)700

CITATOR INFO :

R 1988 SC1845 (22)

ACT:

Indian Easement Act, 1882:

Section 52, 60, 62, 63 and 64 License grant of--Express

or implied--Also oral--To be inferred/ascertained from

conduct of parties and circumstances leading to grant of

license--When license becomes irrevocable--Person allowing

another to build on his land without reserving any right to

revoke--Whether entitled to revoke.

Practice and procedure:

Pleading--Form of--Undue emphasis not to be

placed--Substance of pleading alone to be considered.

HEADNOTE:

The property in dispute was under the occupation of a

school managed by a Registered Education Society. The Socie-

ty was managing the respondent college also. The school was

not recognised and had no endowment and building of its own.

In order to secure recognition for the school, the President

of Society, who owned the property in dispute, informed the

Inspector of Schools by a letter dated November 26, 1941,

that he had given away the premises occupied by the school

free of rent, which may be considered as his permanent

contribution to the cause of the school. Pursuant to this,

the school was recognised. To meet the need for additional

accommodation the management made permanent constructions on

the open land attached to the building without any objection

by the donor or any of his family members.

The donor had taken a considerable amount of loan and

mortgaged the property in dispute, alongwith a number of

properties on March 27, 1957. In order to pay off the loan

the property in dispute was got discharged and the donor

alongwith his three minor sons executed a sale deed trans-

ferring the property in dispute to the plaintiff-appellant.

The plaintiff-appellant served a notice on the school

and its managing committee terminating their license and

directing them to restore the possession of property to him

and upon their failure to do so,

806

filed a suit for possession. The defendants pleaded that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 16

property in dispute had been donated to the school perma-

nently and the school had made permanent constructions by

incurring expenses and, therefore, their license was irrevo-

cable.

The trial court dismissed the suit after recording

findings to the effect that the property in dispute belonged

to the joint family of which the donor was Karta, that

though the property was donated to the school no rifle

passed to it or to any of the defendants as the property

being immovable could not be transferred except under a

registered deed, and that in the absence of the transfer

deed, then donor continued to be the owner and could trans-

fer title in the property to the plaintiff, that under the

U.P. Act. III of 1947 no allotment could validly be issued

in favour of the school as there was no vacancy or likeli-

hood of vacancy, that though the property had been given

away to the school by the donor as permanent contribution,

but in the absence of the registered deed, the transactions

amounted to a license only, and since the defendants had

made permanent constructions on the premises in suit, li-

cense was irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Indian

Easements Act 1882 and as the donor himself had no power in

a law to revoke the license, the plaintiff being transferee

from him could not acquire any better right and, therefore,

he was not entitled to revoke the license or to obtain

possession of the property. In the appeal