### Licensee Denying Licensor's Title or Relationship Cannot Claim Irrevocability Under Section 60(b) of Easements Act

The Plaintiff-Trust (Respondent) filed a suit for possession of suit schedule property (CTS No. 1522), arrears of license fees, and mesne profits, claiming ownership via a registered Gift Deed dated 15.02.1997.

The Plaintiff alleged the Defendants (Appellants) were inducted as licensees in 2000 to run a school but failed to pay fees, leading to the termination of the license via notice dated 14.09.2010.

The Defendants contested, asserting the Gift Deed was invalid, claiming they constructed the building with permission from a previous lessee (Basayya), and challenging the valuation of the suit under Section 41(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court (FAC) decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.

The Defendants appealed to the High Court on substantial questions of law regarding court fees and the irrevocability of the license.

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the Court fee valued under Section 41 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 is proper when there was no landlord–tenant relationship.

2. Whether the suit is hit by Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, regarding irrevocable licenses.

Section 41 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, which governs court fees for suits specifically between landlords and tenants.

Section 29 of the same Act was applied for suits for possession "not otherwise provided for," requiring fee computation based on market value.

Section 11(4) of the Act permits an appellate court to require payment of deficit court fees without dismissing the suit in limine.

Regarding easements, Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, establishes that a license becomes irrevocable only if the licensee, acting upon the license, executes work of a permanent character.

The Court also referenced Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd. regarding the limitations of a Power of Attorney holder’s testimony.

The Court found that while the Plaintiff established ownership through the Gift Deed and termination of the prior lease, the valuation of the suit under Section 41(2) was erroneous because the Plaintiff's own pleadings alleged a licensor-licensee relationship, not a landlord-tenant relationship.

Consequently, the suit should have been valued under Section 29 based on market value.

Regarding Section 60(b) of the Easements Act, the Court reasoned that the Defendants could not claim an irrevocable license because they consistently denied the Plaintiff's title and the existence of a license from the Plaintiff, asserting instead they took permission from a former lessee.

Since the Defendants did not "act upon the license" granted by the Plaintiff, the license remained revocable.

The Court upheld the representation of the Trust by its Chairman under Order XXXI Rule 1 CPC, noting that all trustees need not be joined as plaintiffs when suing a third party.

The Court modified the lower court's decree: (1) The Plaintiff was directed to file a fresh valuation slip under Section 29 and pay the deficit court fee within four weeks; (2) The Defendants were granted one year to vacate the premises due to the operational school; (3) The judgment of the Trial Court was otherwise affirmed.

Under Section 11(4)(c) of the Court Fees Act, the deficit fee is recoverable as arrears of land revenue if not paid.