Skip to content


Bhoj Raj Vs. Hardeva and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1922)ILR44All726; 77Ind.Cas.140
AppellantBhoj Raj
RespondentHardeva and ors.
Excerpt:
easements act (v of 1882), section 59 - licensee, whether can claim adversely--transfer of property--license, whether cancelled. - - 5. the defendants came up in appeal and a learned judge of this court has dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that a zamindar cannot revoke a licence like this at his will after the tenant has enjoyed the privilege, for more than twelve years......ground that it was barred by time because the plaintiff had not proved his possession within 12 years of suit.4. the lower appellate court found, in concurrence with the first court, that the constructions were more than 20 years old and that the defendants were mere licensees; that the plaintiff having got the property from the original licensors by virtue of transfer, the licence ceased to exist, having regard to section 59 of the indian easements act (v of 1882), and the defendants were liable, to ejectment. it accordingly decreed the plaintiff's suit.5. the defendants came up in appeal and a learned judge of this court has dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that a zamindar cannot revoke a licence like this at his will after the tenant has enjoyed the privilege, for more.....
Judgment:

Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Gokul Prasad, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff (appellant) to recover a certain plot of waste land in the village from the defendants who, according to the plaintiff's allegation, have erected certain thatched sheds and cattle troughs without his permission a short time ago.

2. The defence raised was (1) that the sheds were 25 years old, (2) that the plaintiff had lost title because of want of possession for 12 years, and (3) that these constructions were necessary for the defendants' cultivation in the village, or, in other words, that they were appurtenant to their holding.

3. The first court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by time because the plaintiff had not proved his possession within 12 years of suit.

4. The lower appellate court found, in concurrence with the first court, that the constructions were more than 20 years old and that the defendants were mere licensees; that the plaintiff having got the property from the original licensors by virtue of transfer, the licence ceased to exist, having regard to Section 59 of the Indian Easements Act (V of 1882), and the defendants were liable, to ejectment. It accordingly decreed the plaintiff's suit.

5. The defendants came up in appeal and a learned Judge of this Court has dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that a zamindar cannot revoke a licence like this at his will after the tenant has enjoyed the privilege, for more than twelve years. As a general proposition of the law, we cannot accept this statement of the law as correct. A licensee cannot by enjoying the licence for any length of time acquire rights adverse to that of the licensor. The question whether a certain class of land is appurtenant to the holding of a tenant is one of fact depending upon the circumstances of each particular case. In this case, as we have stated above, the lower appellate court has found that the defendants did not hold the plot in suit or the constructions thereon as appurtenances to their holding. On this finding and the further fact that the plaintiff was a transferee from the original licensor, the licence had ceased to exist by operation of law and the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. We, therefore, allow this appeal. As a claim based upon false allegations by a zamindar is one which does not meet with our approval, we refuse him his costs in all courts. The result is that the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court is set aside and the plaintiff's claim is decreed, but without costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //