William Comer Petheram, C.J.

1. This is a suit by the plaintiff to have his rightsdeclared under a contract made between him and the defendants, and to obtain aninjunction against the defendants restraining them from breaking the contract.

2. The contract is in respect of some land as to theownership of which some years ago there was a dispute between the plaintiff andthe defendants That dispute was finally settled by the present plaintiff givingup all claim to the land, and admitting that it was the property of thedefendants, and in consideration of his doing so the defendants agreed to allowhim to go on to the land at all times for the purpose of using a particularcorner of it as a privy. That went on for a great number of years apparently,but in course of time the defendants used this land for purposes inconsistentwith its continued user in this way, and though the plaintiff might have goneon to the land and used it in the same way, he would have become a nuisance,and what he did would have become a nuisance, and it was under thesecircumstances that the defendants refused to allow him to go there any more forthat purpose, and it is to assert this right that this action has been brought.

3. This action has been defended in the two lower Courts onvarious grounds. I should say that no claim was advanced for damages, but onlyfor an injunction to compel the defendants to allow the plaintiff to use theland in this way. But the point was never made, until the matter came to thisCourt, that this was a license which was revocable at any time subject to theliability to pay damages. That point has been taken here, and we think it is aperfectly good one. The law, so far as we have been able to ascertain, is the samein this country as it is in England, there being so far as we can see no commonlaw in this country on the subject and no statutory law either. The law inEngland is clearly laid down in the case of Wood v. Leadbitter 13 M. & W.838. The Courts have acted upon the law as there laid down ever since, and ithas always been held to be good law and binding upon them. That case decidedthat the license to go upon another mans land, unless coupled with a grant,was revocable at the will of the grantor, subject to the right of the other todamages if the license were revoked contrary to the terms of any express orimplied contract.

4. That being so, we think that the Munsif and the learnedJudge were both wrong in granting an injunction in this suit, but inasmuch asthis point was not taken below, and there is no doubt about it that thedefendant has acted in this case in a high-handed manner, he has revoked thislicense and has prohibited the plaintiff from using the land without offeringcompensation; therefore, although we think that this appeal must be decreed andthe suit dismissed, we think that each party ought to bear his own costs allthrough. In the result then, this appeal will be decreed and the plaintiffssuit dismissed without costs.

.

Ram Coomar Ghose vs.Prosonna Coomar Singha (28.05.1889 -CALHC)