RAM SARUP GUPTA (DEAD) BY LRS. versus BISHUN NARAIN INTER COLLEGE & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 805 · Decided: 08-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1 
. ._ 
~ 
-+ 
~ 
.~ 
-
~· 
RAM SARUP GUPTA (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
BISHUN NARAIN INTER COLLEGE & ORS. 
APRIL 8, 1987 
A 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
8 
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 c 
reserving any right to revoke-Whether entitled to revoke. 
Practice and procedure: 
Pleading-Form of-Undue emphasis not to be placed-Sub- D 
stance of pleading alone to be considered. 
The property in di•pute wa• under the oecupation of a school 
managed by a Registered Education Society. The Society was managing 
the re•pondent college al.o. The •chool was not recognised and had no 
endowment and building of its own. In order to secure recognition for E 
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 bis 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 F 
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 mort-
gaged 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 G 
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, 
H 
805 
806 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
A 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 
B 
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 oWller and could transfer title in the property to the plaintiff, 
c 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 de-
fendants had made permanent constructions on the premises in suit, 
D 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 
·Ji< 
Court there was difference of opinion between the two Judges who 
E 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. 
j_ 
In the appeal to this Court, it was submitted that the trial court as 
).. 
F 
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 
G holding the l

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.