Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal arises from a property dispute between two brothers, Madhukar Bholaram Hatwalne (original defendant) and Yeshwant Bholaram Hatwalne (original plaintiff), both deceased, represented by their legal representatives. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of half portion of plot No.7 admeasuring 5040 sq. ft. in Malkapur, Akola, claiming he purchased the plot via registered sale deed dated 17/11/1981. He alleged that he allowed his brother (defendant) to use half the plot to construct a residential house as a licence, which was revocable at will. The plaintiff issued a notice on 01/11/1998 revoking the licence effective 30/11/1998 and sought possession. The defendant contested, claiming he contributed half the purchase price and thus had ownership, or alternatively, that he had acquired title by adverse possession, or that the licence was irrevocable because it involved construction. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant failed to prove adverse possession and that the licence was revocable. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. In second appeal, the High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the revocability of the licence and adverse possession. The court analysed the evidence and found that the defendant did not prove any agreement for sale or contribution to purchase price. The licence was not coupled with transfer of property or granted for valuable consideration, hence revocable under Section 62 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. Regarding adverse possession, the court noted that the defendant's possession was permissive and he did not assert hostile title; mere long possession does not suffice. The concurrent findings of fact were not perverse, and no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Licence - Revocability - Section 62, Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Licence granted for construction of house is revocable at the will of the grantor unless it falls under exceptions in Section 60 - The court held that the licence was not coupled with transfer of property or granted for valuable consideration, hence revocable - The defendant's claim of irrevocable licence was rejected (Paras 10-12). B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Requirements - The defendant failed to prove hostile animus and exclusive possession for over 12 years - Mere long possession without assertion of hostile title does not constitute adverse possession - The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the defendant did not acquire title by adverse possession (Paras 13-15). C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Scope - Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence - The court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the licence granted to the defendant to construct a house on the plaintiff's plot was revocable, and whether the defendant had acquired title by adverse possession.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The concurrent findings of the lower courts are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Licence revocable under Section 62 of Indian Easements Act
- 1882
- Adverse possession requires hostile animus and exclusive possession
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 CPC
