Licence law and acquiescence: denial of title did not forfeit the licence, and mandatory injunction was refused.

Breach of a prohibition against building over a wall or projecting eaves did not, on the terms of the licence, entitle the grantor to evict the licensee or recover possession, because the right of recovery was tied only to breach of the repair obligation. Denial of the grantor's title did not by itself forfeit the licence; revocation remained confined to the statutory cases, and estoppel against denial of title did not create an automatic forfeiture rule. Mandatory injunction was refused because both parties had long acquiesced in the structures, and only nominal damages were awarded for breach of warranty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether breach of the stipulation against building over the wall and projecting eaves entitled the grantor to evict the licensee and recover possession of the site; (ii) whether denial of the grantor's title by the licensee caused forfeiture of the licence; and (iii) whether the facts justified grant of a mandatory injunction and the award of damages.

Issue (i): whether breach of the stipulation against building over the wall and projecting eaves entitled the grantor to evict the licensee and recover possession of the site

Analysis: The agreement made a clear distinction between the prohibition against building or projecting eaves and the obligation to keep the wall in repair or restore it if damaged. The right to recover the site was linked only to breach of the latter obligation. Breach of the first stipulation was treated as a warranty, not a condition going to the root of the arrangement.

Conclusion: The breach of the prohibition against building over the wall did not entitle the grantor to evict the licensee or recover the site.

Issue (ii): whether denial of the grantor's title by the licensee caused forfeiture of the licence

Analysis: A licence is not determined by forfeiture merely because the licensee denies the licensor's title. Section 60 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 permits revocation only in the specified cases, and where the licensee has executed a work of a permanent character and incurred expense acting on the licence, the licence is irrevocable. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 creates an estoppel against denial of title, but it does not create a forfeiture rule for licences. In the absence of an express condition or statutory provision, forfeiture cannot be imported by analogy from the law of leases.

Conclusion: The licence was not forfeited by denial of title.

Issue (iii): whether the facts justified grant of a mandatory injunction and the award of damages

Analysis: Section 55 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 confers a discretionary power to grant an injunction to prevent breach of obligation, but the remedy may be refused where the plaintiff has acquiesced in the complained-of act. On the facts, both sides had long allowed structures to remain over the wall, and the plaintiff stood by for many years without objecting. That acquiescence disentitled her to mandatory relief. The court also held that the defendant could not be compelled to purchase the site, but the plaintiff was entitled to nominal damages for breach of warranty.

Conclusion: Mandatory injunction was rightly refused, and only nominal damages were payable.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to obtain possession or mandatory relief, the licence was held not to be forfeited, and the decree was modified only to award nominal damages, leaving the respondent substantially successful.

Ratio Decidendi: In a licence, denial of the licensor's title does not, by itself, work forfeiture; revocation and forfeiture depend on the governing statute or express terms, and equitable relief may be refused where the claimant has acquiesced in the complained-of construction.

---