JUDGMENT
Oldfield and Brodhurst, JJ.
1. The claim is by a zamindar to have his right declared to build a house on some waste land in the mauza. Defendants are tenants in the mauza, and assert that they have built wells and watercourses on this land, and have a right also to use it as a threshing-floor and for stacking cow-dung. On these grounds they resist the claim.
2. The Court below admits that the defendants have no proprietary right in this land, but has dismissed the claim on the ground that they have acquired a right to use it for the purposes claimed.
3. But if they have acquired no right adverse to the plaintiff as owners, by prescription, or otherwise, in the land, their right of use can only be as licensees of the plaintiff; and, on the facts found in this case, it can be revoked by the plaintiff, except in respect of the wells, which are works of a permanent character, and on which the defendants have incurred expenses.
2. The principle of Sections 60[1] and 611[2] of the Easements Act is quite applicable to this case, although that Act is not in force here.
3. In this case, their right to the wells which they have made cannot be interfered with; but the zamindar can revoke the license as to the other use claimed of the land.
4. The decree of the Court of First Instance, which, while decreeing the claim to build the house, preserves the rights as to the wells and taking water from them, and also provides, by consent of the plaintiff, facilities for a threshing-floor, &c., is fit to be affirmed.
5. We set aside the decree of the Lower Appellate Court, and restore that of the first Court with costs.
[1] Section: A license may be revoked by the grantor,
License when revocable.
unless
(a) it is coupled with a transfer of property and such transfer is in force:
(b) the licensee, acting upon the license, has executed a work of a permanent
character and incurred expenses in the execution.
[2] Revocation express or Section 61: The revocation of a license may be
implied. express or implied.
