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. 

The property in dispute was under the occupation of a school managed by a Registered Education Society. The Society 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 bad 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 transferring 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, filed a suit for possession. The defendants pleaded that the property in dispute had been donated to the school permanently and the school had made permanent constructions by incurring expenses and, therefore, their license was irrevocable.   

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 Karla, that though the property was donated to the school no title 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 transfer 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 likelihood 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, license 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 before the High Court there was difference of opinion between the two Judges who constituted the Division Bench and the matter was referred to a third Judge. By majority, the High Court affirmed the findings of the trial court and held that the license granted to the school was irrevocable and the appellant was not entitled to any relief. 

In the appeal to this Court, it was submitted that the trial court as well as the High Court both erred in holding that the license was irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easement Act, that the defendants had failed to raise necessary pleadings on the question, no issue was framed and no evidence was produced by them, that in the absence of requisite pleadings and issues, it was not open to the trial court and the High Court to make out a new case for the defendants holding the license irrevocable, and that the defendants had failed to produce any evidence to prove the terms and conditions of the license and that the donor being Karla of the joint family could not allenate the property permanently to the detriment of the minor co-sharers. It was contended on behalf of the defendants-respondents that both the courts had recorded findings of fact on appreciation of evidence on record, that the license granted by the donor/grantor was irrevocable and that acting upon the license, the school had made construction for the purposes of running the school and the license was irrevocable and that necessary pleadings had been raised and there was sufficient evidence in support of the pleadings.