Permissive User Cannot Claim Irrevocability of Licence Under Section 60(b) for Unauthorized Permanent Construction

The Plaintiff (Respondent) filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against his brothers and their children (Appellants), seeking recovery of possession of Property No. C-57, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi

The Plaintiff claimed absolute ownership via a registered Sale Deed dated 16.01.1966 and asserted the Appellants were merely permissive users

The Appellants contended the property was purchased from joint family funds and that an oral family settlement in the 1980s had granted them ownership

Previous litigation (CS No. 313/2014) regarding unauthorized construction had already affirmed the Plaintiff’s title

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

1. Whether the license in favor of the Appellants had become irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, due to the execution of works of a permanent character?

2. Whether the suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable without seeking a declaration of title where a "cloud" was allegedly raised over the Plaintiff's title?

3. Whether the Courts erred in failing to give weight to the alleged oral family settlement between the parties?

The court applied Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, defining a license as a permissive right without proprietary interest

It strictly interpreted Section 60(b) of the same Act, which protects a licensee from revocation only if they execute permanent work acting upon the license and incur expenses

Precedents including Shankar Gopinath Apte v. Gangabai Hariharrao Patwardhan established that work done under an assertion of ownership (rather than as a licensee) does not trigger Section 60(b)

Additionally, the court relied on Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy regarding when a suit for declaration is necessary versus a suit for injunction

Kale & Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation regarding the validity of oral family settlements

The Court found no "cloud" on the Plaintiff's title as he held a registered Sale Deed from 1966 which was never legally challenged by the Appellants

Regarding Section 60(b), the Court reasoned that the Appellants failed all three prongs of the test: first, the construction was found to be "unauthorized" in prior litigation, meaning they were not "acting upon the license" or with the grantor's consent

the Appellants' plea was contradictory as they claimed to build as "owners" (based on an oral settlement) rather than as "licensees," thereby forfeiting the protection of Section 60(b)

the oral family settlement was deemed vague and unsubstantiated by evidence

The Court affirmed that long-term permissive occupation (40 years) does not mature into ownership

The Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, ruling that a suit for mandatory injunction is appropriate for recovering possession from a licensee after the license is terminated

The Second Appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, confirming the decree directing the Appellants to hand over possession to the Respondents