Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bachna Ram vs Bikha Ram And Others on 27 January, 2010
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
RSA No. 3158 of 2007 (O&M) 1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Decided on January 27,2010.
Bachna Ram Appellant
vs.
Bikha Ram and others -- Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Sanjay Verma,Advocate,for the appellant Mr.R.K.Dhiman,.Advocate,for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, Plaintiff is in second appeal in a suit for mandatory injunction in which he has sought a direction to the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the house consisting of two pucca and one kacha room, Sehan constructed in Khasra No. 187, Khewat/Khatoni No. 267/413, situated at village Taharpur Kalan, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.
A few skeltal facts necessary to invoke basic legal contentions only are noticed:-
The plaintiff claims ownership over the plot in question on the basis of a sale deed dated 18.9.1972. Due to rains in the month of July,1991, house of defendant No.2. (brother of the plaintiff) and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (nephew of the plaintiff) fell down and the plaintiff allowed them to live in the property in dispute as licensee for a period of two years, RSA No. 3158 of 2007 (O&M) 2 but after the expiry of the said period, the defendants did not hand over vacant possession of the house, hence, the plaintiff had to file the suit.
In reply, the defendants have pleaded that in the year 1972, plaintiff, defendant No.1 and their brothers Mohan Lal and Sadhu Ram were living jointly having a joint mess but the plaintiff who used to manage the family affairs secretly got a sale deed executed and registered in his own name. It is claimed that on 2.6.1975 a family settlement took place amongst all the four brothers which included their residential property in abadi land. In the said family settlement, the suit land fell to the share of defendant No.1. and plaintiff and other brothers, namely Mohan Lal, and Sadhu Ram got abadi land of village Taharpur Kalan. It was further claimed that defendant No.1. constructed a 'chhan' in the suit land and constructed one kacha room and a Chhappar out of his own funds and in the year 1990, Indira Awas Harijan Colony, was carved out by the. Government of Haryana, and according to this Scheme, benefit was given to 20 persons belonging to Harijan Community including defendant No.1. whose names are mentioned in resolution No.1 dated 15.7.1990 of Gram Panchayat, Taharpur Kalan and their pucca houses were constructed in the suit land under the said scheme. It is also alleged that electric connection is also there in the name of defendant No.2.
After taking the evidence, both the Courts have decided against the plaintiff who is claiming himself to be the owner and the defendants to be his licencee.
Although, learned trial Court has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the area given to defendant No.1. as a licencee, yet before the learned first Appellate Court, keeping in view the worst case against the RSA No. 3158 of 2007 (O&M) 3 defendants that they are licensees on the land in question inducted by the plaintiff, it was decided that in view of Section 60 of the Indian Easement Act,1882 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act') if there is a pucca construction on the land under the licensee, the license became irrevocable. In this regard, Section 60 of the Act is required to be reproduced:-
60.Licence when revocable. A licence may be revoked by the grantor unless-
(a) it is coupled with a transfer of property and such transfer is in force;
(b) the licensee, acting upon the licence, has executed a work of a permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution.
Learned Court below has relied upon two decisions in the cases of Sitara Shahjahan Begam and another Vs. Munna and another, AIR 1927 Allahabad, 342 and Mt.Manbi Vs. Kodu AIR 1929 Nagpur, 269.
In the case of Sitaram Shahjahan Begam (Supra), it has been held as under:-
"Where a licence is granted to build houses on the site and the licensee have created a work of permanent nature on the site, the licence can not in view of the provisions of S. 60 be revoked"
In the case of Mt.Manbi (Supra), Nagpur High Court has held as under:-
"If a person constructs a permanent building on a portion of the site belonging to another under an implied license from him, the license RSA No. 3158 of 2007 (O&M) 4 cannot be revoked and the licensee cannot be ejected from the building. The irrevocability of the license in such a case applies to that portion of the site which is covered by the building and not to any other open portion of the site".
In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to cite any judgment to the contrary that if a pucca construction has been raised on the land under license, the same can be revoked.
In view of the above, I do not find any reason to differ with the findings of fact and also issue of law determined by the learned Courts below, especially when no question of law much-less substantial has been either pleaded or argued before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
January 27,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge