1987 (4) TMI 476 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the respondents in their written statement have raised the necessary pleading that the license was irrevocable as contemplated by Section 60(b) of the Act and, if so, is there any evidence on record to support that plea? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The appellant should have known that the institution was occupying the property and it was rendering public service in imparting education to the students and it would be difficult to get possession, in spite of that, the appellant purchased the property. The school has been occupying the property since 1939 and it has made permanent constructions without any demur from any quarter, in this situation it is not possible to grant any relief to the appellant. To evict the school may result into closure of the institution and that would certainly be against public interest. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, we gave opportunity to the parties to evolve settlement to adjust equities without disturbing the cause of education. We regret to say that the parties could not settle the matter, we have therefore decided the appeal on merits.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Ownership and donation of the property.
2. Nature and terms of the license granted to the school.
3. Irrevocability of the license under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882.
4. Jurisdiction of the civil court.
5. Rights of the appellant as a transferee.
6. Impact of the license on the joint family property.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership and Donation of the Property:

The property in dispute, located at Nawal Kishore Road, Lucknow, was owned by Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava. He allowed the Progressive Education Society to run a school on his property without charging rent, which led to the school's recognition by the Education Department. The school was renamed to honor Bhargava's father, Bishun Narain Bhargava. Despite the donation, the trial court found that no title passed to the school as the property transfer required a registered deed, which was absent. Therefore, Bhargava remained the owner and could transfer the title to the appellant.

2. Nature and Terms of the License Granted to the School:

The trial court determined that Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava granted the school a license to use the property. The license was deemed permanent and irrevocable due to the school's substantial investments in permanent constructions. The High Court affirmed this, noting that the school's extensive use and modifications of the property were with Bhargava's knowledge and without any objections from him.

3. Irrevocability of the License under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882:

The primary contention was whether the license was irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Act. The court held that the license was irrevocable because the school, acting upon the license, executed works of a permanent character and incurred expenses. The defendants' pleadings and evidence supported this. The court emphasized that even if the exact statutory language was not used in the pleadings, the substance of the case was clear and sufficient.

4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:

The trial court rejected the defendants' plea that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It found that no valid allotment could be issued under the U.P. Act III of 1947 as there was no vacancy or likelihood of vacancy.

5. Rights of the Appellant as a Transferee:

The appellant, who purchased the property from Bhargava, claimed the right to revoke the license and sought possession. However, the court ruled that since Bhargava had granted an irrevocable license, the appellant, as a transferee, could not acquire any better right to revoke the license or evict the school.

6. Impact of the License on the Joint Family Property:

The appellant argued that Bhargava, as the Karta of a joint family, could not create a permanent license without the consent of other co-sharers. The court dismissed this argument, noting that no co-sharer objected to the donation or the constructions made by the school. The court inferred that the license was in the interest of the joint family as it perpetuated the memory of their common ancestor.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the license granted to the school was irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the school was allowed to continue using the property for educational purposes. The court noted the public interest in maintaining the school's operations and the appellant's awareness of the school's occupancy when purchasing the property. The appeal was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.