By Yamini Rajora, National Law University, Jodhpur
Editor’s Note: The usage of license to signify a transaction is widely used by laymen, who rarely think in terms of jural relations. In the following study, the author has made an attempt to explain the meaning of licence and how a licence is granted in India. Moreover, it is important to have an understanding of the difference between a lease (that is a tenancy), easement and a licence under general law so that one knows what one is dealing with in any particular case. Therefore, the author has also sought to draw a line between these concepts.
Property is perhaps the most important and the most complicated and extensive branch of modern law. Under this field of law, the rights, claims, duties and obligations of the parties involved with any kind of property become the subject of study.
“Chameleon-hued” was the expression once applied by Hohfeld to the term “license” in a passage where he added that it was “a word of convenient and seductive obscurity; and the task of dealing at all adequately with the intricate and confused subject would, in and of itself, require a long article.” The subject is indeed intricate and confused; and yet it is one which particularly appealed to his keenly analytical mind and which was peculiarly susceptible of instructive treatment under methods of rigid analysis.
Earlier, licence was described as the fact that a landowner communicated his consent to another’s using his land; while at other times licence was described the legal relationship whereby the other could use the land without being liable for trespass. In present times, licence is referred to as a validation by the owner of the land for the acts of the licensee which would otherwise be committed unlawfully.
The traditional concepts of “bare” or “mere” licenses, licenses “coupled with an interest” or “with a grant,” licenses “acted upon” or “executed,” and licenses “upon valuable consideration” were used earlier. Most of these concepts assumed certain differences in the legal consequences of various transactions, and therefore furnished a poor starting point for determining what the legal consequences of a given transaction should be. It also made it easy to overlook important license transactions which these phrases did not suggest.
A factual classification of licenses which starts with the differences in the parties’ intentions will place in one group the transactions wherein the parties have contemplated that the interests created should be revocable. But the transactions where the parties have contemplated irrevocable interests require further subdivision. A large number of licenses are not at all lacking in formality; they are called licenses solely to distinguish them from leases. Another large group of licenses are so called because they are oral; previous discussion has been confined almost entirely to these. Licenses of another group present a different problem because they are written but unsealed. Still other licenses are so called, although they are in writing .and under seal, because they lack technical conveyance language.
According to some scholars, the legal instrument of “License” in immovable properties was developed to deal with the legal complications of lease and rental rights under Indian law. In particular, this legal instrument was developed to enable property owners to restrict lessees and evict them more easily. Still, many property owners that intended to protect themselves by entering a leave and license agreement (i.e. a license agreement to use an immoveable property for a certain purpose), find themselves facing court decisions ruling that their agreement was in fact a lease agreement. Some of the mistakes made by such property owners may be avoided.
In the present work, an attempt has been made to explain the meaning of licence and how a licence is granted in India. In India, Indian Easements Act of 1882 governs such transactions. Section 52, 53 and 54 are the relevant provisions to understand concept and grant of licence in India. The following project work aims to differentiate between leases and licence along with lease and easement. The main difference between a license and a lease is that a license does not create a right in property itself, therefore eviction is practically immediate and hassle free. It is important to have an understanding of the difference between a lease (that is a tenancy) and a licence under general law so that one knows what one is dealing with in any particular case.
A licence is a personal right granted to a person to do something upon immovable property of the grantor and does not amount to the creation of interest in the property itself.[i] It is purely a permissive right and is personal to the grantee. It creates no duties and obligations upon the persons making the grant and is, therefore, revocable except in certain circumstances expressly provided for in the Indian Easements act, 1882 itself. The licence, when granted, has not other effect to confer liberty upon the licencee to go upon the land which would otherwise be lawful.
“A licence in the law of land is ordinarily a permission merely to do something on or to the detriment of the land of the giver of the licence, the licensor. Occasionally it is a permission to interfere with an easement or profit a prendre belonging to the licensor. It creates a privilege in favor of the licencee.”[ii]
A licence may be oral in which case, terms, conditions and the nature of the licence, can be gathered from the purpose for which the licence is granted coupled with the conduct of the parties and the circumstances which may have led to the grant of the licence.[iii] Every licence is governed by the provisions under the Easements act.
A licence does not confer an interest or property in the thing, and though it may be coupled with a grant which conveys an interest in property, licence by itself does not confer any interest.[iv]
Where the parties entered into a partition agreement and divided the property giving themselves certain rights, it would not amount to a licence.[v]
The negative definition of licence under Indian law makes it necessary that before a right can be shown to be a licence only, it must be proved not to be an easement or an interest in the property.[vi]
Licence under English Law
According to English Law, a licence is purely a personal privilege or right enabling the licencee to do something on the land of the licensor which would otherwise be unlawful.[vii] It is an excuse by reason of the consent of the licensor for doing an act which would otherwise be unlawful.[viii] It is merely a leave to do a thing, which enables the licencee to do lawfully what he could not otherwise do except unlawfully.
A licence is merely a permission to do an act, which without such permission would amount to a trespass.[ix] A dispensation or licence properly passeth no interest, nor alters or transfers property in anything, but only makes an action lawful, which without it had been unlawful.[x]
Licence is only a permission to do something on an immovable property like occupation, or enjoying fruit thereof, or using it for some other purpose.
License is an official permit or permission to carry on some business or do some act which without the license would be unlawful and the words license and permit are often used synonymously.[xi] Licence is interchangeable with permission. Permission or licence is granted for use of an immovable property for a particular purpose given by the granter to the grantee which as of a necessity in his retention of dominant right of possession over the immovable property with the granter.
In India, the Indian Easements Act, 1882 provides for law relating to licences in property law. Section 52 of Indian Easements Act, 1882 defines Licence as under:
“Where one person grants to another, or to a definite number of other persons, a right to do or continue to do, in or upon immovable property of the grantor, something which would, in the absence of such rights, be unlawful, and such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, the right is called a licence.”
From the above definition of licence, it seems that if a person himself has acquired a right or interest in an immovable property through an instrument, the right conveyed in his favour in that instrument, will not be licence.[xii] In India, judicial and legislative definitions of licence have followed the English definitions of the term.[xiii]
Under Section 52, if a person is given the right to use the immovable property in a particular way under certain terms while retaining control and possession of the same, the person so permitted is only a licencee.[xiv] The question that arises in this context is that whether the relationship is that of landlord-tenant or licensor-licensee. The relationship depends on the intention of the parties that whether there was interest in the land or merely personal privilege without any interest.
A licence cannot be granted only in favour of definite number of persons and not in favour of fluctuating body or individuals. The agreement involved in the case, even if binding on the defendants, cannot be considered to be at least a bilateral agreement between the representatives of the two parties and containing reciprocal conditions. A licence is a personal right given to the licencee and, therefore, Section 56 of the Easements Act, 1882 provides that licence cannot be transferred by the licencee or exercised by his servants and agents.
The Supreme Court in Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor[xv] summed the concept of Licence as under:
“Under the aforesaid section, if a document gives only a right to use the property in particular way or under certain terms while it remains in the possession and control of the owner thereof, it will be a licence. The legal possession, thereof, continues to be with the owner of the property, but the licencee is permitted to make use of the premises for a particular purpose. But for the permission, his occupation would be unlawful. It does not create in his favour any estate or interest in the property.”
It important to take note of essential features of licence as under[xvi]:
- A licence is not connected with the ownership of land / property but creates only a personal right or obligation;
- Licence only creates a right or interest in the immovable property to do something, under the authority of the grantor of the licence.
- A licence cannot be transferred or assigned;
- Licence is purely permissive right arising only by permission, express or implied, and not by adverse exercise or in any other way[xvii];
- It only legalize a certain act which would otherwise be unlawful and does not confer any interest in the property itself in or upon or over which such act is allowed to be done.[xviii]
- A licencee cannot sue outsiders in his own name.
A licence may be of the following two kinds:
- Bare licence which is purely a matter of personal privilege, and
- Licence coupled with a grant or interest in the land.
Whether the act allowed to be done is a bare licence or something more than a licence depends on the terms of the transaction.
When a landowner permits another to use the land under circumstances in which it is reasonable to foresee that the licensee will spend money or otherwise change position in the belief that the license will not be revoked, the license may become irrevocable. For example, if a person owns two parcels, one of which has no access to a public road, sells the landlocked parcel to another person, and gives him permission to build a driveway across the lot the seller has retained, the license becomes irrevocable when the buyer invests in the property, reasonably believing that the permission will not be revoked.
1. Bare Licence
A bare licence is a personal permission or consent, granted without consideration, to enter, traverse over or be present upon the land of another. A bare licence is a licence granted gratuitously which is not coupled with the grant of an interest in the land, e.g. the licence which one necessarily grants to one’s guests. Such a licence may be revoked at any time.
A bare licence is a defence to what would otherwise amount to the tort of trespass.[xix] Where the licencee oversteps the ambit of the licence, his status will therefore be that of trespasser[xx]. If the person is permitted to enter the land for one purpose but enters for another purpose[xxi], or whilst on the land begins to pursue a different purpose to that which he is authorised[xxii], again he becomes a trespasser, where it is known or understood that the occupier would not have given consent.[xxiii]
If a person is allowed to do the act on the land without interfering with the nature of the land or without taking any profits from the land, then it is a case of bare licence. Bare licences may be created expressly or impliedly and no formalities are required – a bare licence may arise by implication from circumstances or conduct.[xxiv]
Bare licenses generally are not assignable (transferable) and are revocable at will by the property owner. Bare licence becomes irrevocable when the licensee acting upon the licence executes a work of a permanent character and incurs expense in doing so.
A licence coupled with a grant or interest in land arises where there is a permission to enter onto another’s land for the purpose of removing something from that land (such as timber)[xxv]. This licence combines the grant of an interest (such as a profit a prendre) with an ancillary permission to enter the land to realise or exploit that interest.[xxvi]
A license coupled with an interest arises when a person acquires the right to take possession of property located on someone else’s land, as when a lender acquires the right to repossess an automobile that is located on private property after the borrower has defaulted on a loan.
A licence may be coupled with the grant of an interest in the land, as when standing timber is sold on terms that the purchaser is to sever the timber: the sale of the timber on these terms implies the grant to the purchaser of a licence to enter the land in order to obtain the timber. Such a licence is irrevocable so long as the interest to which it is annexed lasts, and unless otherwise agreed it can be assigned.
If the person is allowed to take exclusive possession of the land, to plant trees over it, then it is not a bare licence but it is a licence that is coupled with grant or interest in land. If the licence gives the licensee a right to make a construction on land, it is not a bare license but it is a licence coupled with an interest in land. In such a case, the licensee who has entered possession after execution of the licence, is entitled to maintain a suit against the trespasser who has dispossessed him.[xxvii]
Licenses coupled with an interest usually are both assignable and irrevocable, at least until the holder of the license has had a reasonable time to retrieve the property that gave rise to the license. Where such operative facts give a privilege accessory to and in aid of the exercise of a power, or other legal interest, otherwise vested in the licensee.
As defined by Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms.
The transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is called the lessee, the price is called the premium, and the money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered is called the rent.
The requirements for a lease are:
- exclusive possession of a defined area of land,
- for a fixed period (or series of periods) of time,
- with the intention to create an estate in land – that is an interest in the land itself which can be assigned or sold.
A licence is simply a permission to use land. It allows someone access to the land of another for an agreed purpose. It is an authority that justifies what would otherwise be a trespass. It does not confer any interest in land.
Whether a transaction amounts to a lease or license, is a question that has been considered in a whole host of judicial pronouncements and cases continue to be handed over. The question that whether a transaction is lease or license depends upon the intention of the parties and whether exclusive possession has been given or not.
The test to determine that whether a transaction is a lease or a licence is:
- The intention of the parties, which is to be gathered from the terms of the contract. If the terms are not clear, then the surrounding circumstances shall determine the intention of the parties.[xxviii]
- In the absence of a written document and when somebody is in exclusive possession, then the intention is to be gathered from other evidence such as exclusive possession would be the most relevant circumstance to arrive at the intention of the parties at the time of making the lease.
- If dispute arises then intention to be gathered from the reading of the document as a whole.
- Lease or licence is matter of contract between the parties. The contract is to be construed or interpreted on the well-laid principles for construction of contractual terms.
In Booker v. Palmer[xxix], Lord Green stated that-
“There is one golden rule to be followed is that law does not impute an intention to enter into contractual relationships where the circumstances and the conduct of the parties negative any intention of the kind.”
In Cubb v. Lane[xxx], Lord Denning said that-
“The question in all these cases is one of intention: Did the circumstances and conduct of the parties show that all that was intended was that the occupier should have a personal privilege with no interest in the land.”
The definition in Section 52 of the Act referred to above does not refer to exclusive possession. If there is no exclusive possession then the arrangement cannot be a lease and must be a licence. The general rule is that the Court will look at the substance of the agreement rather than the form in which it is expressed.[xxxi]
The major differences between lease and licence are:
- A Lease is a transfer of right to enjoyment (exclusive possession) of that property by the lessor the lessee, made for a certain term in consideration of a fee subject to the terms set out in the lease agreement while a licence is the granting of a permission to use the land in consideration of a fee subject to the conditions set out in the licence.
- A lease grants exclusive possession for a fixed period (term). A licence does not grant exclusive possession.
- A lease creates an interest in the land which can be transferred to the lessee for the period of the lease. A licence does not create or transfer an interest in the land.
- A lease can be transferred (assigned) to another party and if registered on the title is binding on a new owner of the land. A licence is not transferable.
- A lease is not revocable (other than subject to any conditions set out in the lease (e.g. a redevelopment clause). A licence is revocable.
Licence and Easement: Distinction
As per Section 4 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882; easement is defined as right which the owner or the occupier of certain land possesses, as such, for the beneficial enjoyment of that land, to do and continue to do something, or to prevent and continue to prevent something being done, in or upon, or in respect of certain other land not his own.
An easement is right or interest in immovable property for the land belonging to another[xxxii]. When once an easement is validly created, it is annexed to land. The benefit of it passes with the dominant tenement and the burden of it passes with the servient tenement to every person into whose occupation the dominant and servient tenements respectively come.[xxxiii]
The major points of difference between an easement and a licence are the following:
- An easement is a right appertaining to property while a license is only a personal right.
- An easement is a right in rem and is enforceable by all and against all into whose hands the servient and the dominant tenements respectively may come, while a license is only a right in personam and therefore, not so enforceable.
- An easement can be assigned with the property to which it is annexed, but a license cannot be assigned at all except where it is a license to attend a place of public entertainment.
- A right of easement is not revicable at the will of the grantor while a license is so revocable, except where the grantor is stopped by his conduct from exercising the power of revocation conferred by law.[xxxiv]
- A license is permissive right traceable to a grant from the licensor either expressly or impliedly. But an easement is acquired either by assertive enjoyment by the dominant owner or by a negative covenant between the parties or by grant or by statute.
- An easement may be positive or negative in character, a license is invariably positive and cannot be negative in character. It may be that there are cases in which a negative pbligation might be cast on the licensor with the object of protecting a licence coupled with a grant but such obligation is due to the grant accompanying the licence and not to the licence per se.[xxxv]
Granting of Licence
The provisions relating to granting of licence are the same as those governing the easements. The provisions relating to granting of licence in India are Sections 53 and 54 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882.
Two preliminary questions that arise when entering into a Leave and Licence agreement are – who can grant a licence and how a licence is granted.
The first question is answered in section 53 of The Indian Easements act, 1882, that states that a licencee may be granted by anyone in the circumstances and to the extent in and to which he may transfer his interests in the property affected by the licence. In other words, one cannot grant a licence and one cannot receive a licence if the licensor does not possess a sufficient lawful interest in the property.
The second question is answered in section 54 of The Indian Easements act, 1882, that states that a the grant of a licence may be express or implied from the conduct of the grantor, and an agreement which purports to create an easement, but is ineffectual for that purpose, may operate to create a licence. This definition is very important. Owners of properties should mind that their behavior may create a licence, even without a formal licence agreement.
Licence is, therefore, a grant of a right to do something upon an immovable without creating interest in the property. It is therefore, distinguishable from an allied grant such as a lease or an easement. Both lease and easement create an interest in the property. Licence is only a permission to do something on an immovable property like occupation, or enjoying fruit thereof, or using it for some other purpose.
Section 53 provides for the power to grant a licence. It states that – A licence may be granted by anyone in the circumstances and to the extent in and to which he may transfer his interests in the property affected by the licence.
Power to grant a licence is co-extensive with the power to transfer. A man can grant a license in the circumstances and to the extent he can transfer his interest in the property affected thereby.[xxxvi] The power to grant a license is only a personal right attaching only a personal obligation on the grantor is more extensive than the power to impose an easement which affects the property itself.
A licence by a mortgagee or co-tenant who is lawfully in the sole possession and enjoyment of the property, to do a thing which he could himself lawfully do is a valid licence.[xxxvii] Anyone who can transfer property even if he is not the owner can grant a licence. The licence can also be revoked by such a person.[xxxviii]
The grant of licence may be express or implied which can be inferred from the conduct of the grantor.[xxxix] Under Section 52, there is a grant of the right made by the grantor. Without a grant in the general sense, no licence can be created.[xl]
An agreement for licence can subsist and continue to take effect only so long as the licensor continues to enjoy a right, title and interest in the premises. On the termination of the right ot the title, the agreement for licence comes to an end. If the licensor is an tenant, the agreement for licence by him terminates with the tenancy, and the licence ceases to be licensee.[xli]
In order to grant a licence, the licensor need not be the owner of the property. The tenancy rights are also immovable rights of the tenant and therefore, he can grant the licence. But by virtue of Section 53, the tenant can grant the licence subject to the limitation and the extent to which he may be able to transfer the interest, viz., the tenancy rights. A tenant is empowered to transfer his interest but he cannot do so beyond the term of his lease.[xlii]
Section 54 provides that – The grant of a licence may be express or implied from the conduct of the grantor, and an agreement which purports to create an easement, but is ineffectual for that purpose, may operate to create a licence.
A licence is notionally created where a person is granted the right to use the premises without becoming entitled to the exclusive possession of them or the circumstances and conduct of the parties show that all that was intended was that the grantee should be granted a personal privilege with no legal interest.
A mere licence passes no interest nor alters or transfers property in any way but merely makes an act lawful which without would have been unlawful. It is necessary that the licence be in writing or registered.[xliii] Where the licence is coupled with a grant of immovable property or of an interest in immovable property, which is compulsorily registrable, it must be in writing or registered.[xliv]
- Implied Licence
A licence may be implied from the conduct of the licensor whereby he allows something to be done on his land by another person who believes the land to be his own.[xlv] A plea of implied licence may be based on the right of equity to intervene, must have for its foundation either a contract or the existence of some fact which the legal owner is stopped from denying.[xlvi]
An everyday-life example of implied licence is in the case of a shopkeeper in the invitation to customers to enter his premises to do business.
Licence may also be implied from the conduct of the licensor which induces in the mind of the licensee a reasonable belief that the former consents to the latter’s doing of certain acts, the doing of which would have been unlawful but for such consent.[xlvii]
The consent may also consist of words, spoken or written or acts and omissions on the part of the licensor that would invoke reasonable belief in the mind of the licensee that what he does is either actively approved or not objected to by the licensor.
A licence to enter upon the land of another is not implied by the sale of goods which are stored upon the land, by a person other than the person against whom it is claimed, nor the failure of the tenant to keep the premises in repairs authorises the landlord to enter upon it for that purpose, in the absence of a contract to that effect.
- Express Licence
An express license is one which in direct terms authorizes the performance of a certain act; as a license to keep a tavern given by public authority. Express licences govern more specific situations where the permission has been expressly directed towards a particular individual. An example is where owner invites guests for dinner or to stay in a room on his property. The licence governs only the specified period of the stay and any re-entry after that period without further permission would constitute trespass.
It is important to note that a person cannot grant a licence to himself or to himself jointly with another. Therefore, it must be granted by an owner of the property who is different from the licensee.
As a grant forms the basis of an easement as well as a licence, an agreement which purports to create an easement may operate to create a licence only if it is ineffectual for certain reasons to create such easement. As both an easement and licence legalize acts which would have been unlawful otherwise, both go hand in hand but while licence stops, an easement goes further and incorporates itself with the property of the grantee, the beneficial enjoyment of which is its principal characteristics. The rule in England where an easement is created only by grant under seal has a very salutary effect. In India, the cases between landlords and tenants, in which a grant by the former to the latter, of a right of easement, is ineffectual to create an easement in the strict sense of the term, are covered by this rule.[xlviii]
Such a statement does not reveal whether it is a transaction or a legal relationship. If the latter, it may be revocable or irrevocable, and may have, in either case, a variety of other characteristics. If a transaction, it may be unwritten, or written but unsealed, or couched in unusual terms, or designed for a special purpose; its legal consequences will vary with these circumstances.
The conclusion that the term license implies nothing does not mean that there is no law of licenses. There is license law, but it must be stated in terms of particular types of cases. Where a licensor gives no reason to expect otherwise, the licensee’s privileges can be terminated at will. Where a licensor manifests an intention that the privilege shall be more enduring, the consequences depend upon other circumstances. If it offends no legal policy, the license may create a true easement. If it offends the rule requiring a sealed instrument, it will probably create an easement, but the licensee can obtain relief only through equitable procedure. If enforcement of the license would encumber the land with relatively useless burdens, neither the parties’ expectations nor their formalities nor their expenditures will give the interest the characteristics of an easement.
This simple rationalization of license cases is largely impeded by the ambiguous usage of license to signify sometimes a transaction, sometimes a relationship. All the recent writers agree that one of the usages should be adopted and the other rejected, but disagree on which to adopt and which to reject.
The usage of license to signify a transaction is widely used by laymen, who rarely think in terms of jural relations. It is often compared with the terms lease and easement, which usually signify certain kinds of transactions. So long as the legal vocabulary contains the nouns licensor and licensee to designate the parties to the transaction, and the verb to license for the process of transacting, it is fanciful to imagine that lawyers will refrain from describing these operative facts as a license.
The usage of license to signify a relationship can be more readily eliminated. Usage of the additional term license suggests distinctions which seldom exist. The recognition of legal relations as distinguished from operative facts demands terms which suggest the distinction, just as fee and leasehold suggest something different from lease.
Edited by Kanchi Kaushik
[i] Mini Peter Philips v. Dina J. S. Fanibanda, 2008 (1) AIR Bom. R. 475
[ii] Charles E. Clark, Licences in Real Property Law, 21 Columbia Law Review 757-782 (1921)
[iii] Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors., 1987 AIR 1242
[iv] Mohd. Yusuf v. Suraj Bali Singh, AIR 1916 All. 219
[v] P. Perumal Naidu v. Krishnaswamy Naidu, AIR 1998 Mad. 148
[vi] Ajab Singh v. Shital Puri, AIR 1993 All. 138
[vii] Head v. Hartley, 42 Ch. D. 461
[ix] Clifford v. Neil, (1896) 12 App. Div. 17
[x] Thomas v. Sorrell, (1673) Vaughan 33
[xi] Parsons v. People, (1904) 32 Colo. 221
[xii] A. N. Agrawal v. Hukum Singh, 1997 (1) AWC 279
[xiii] Krishna v. Rayappa, 4 Mad. H.C.R. 98
[xiv] B. B. Katiyar, Law of Easements and Licences, 14th Edn. (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2012) 885
[xv] Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor, AIR 1959 SC 1262
[xvi] Khan Saheb Muhammad Khan v. State of Orissa, ILR 1954 Cut. 671
[xvii] Section 62, Indian Easements Act
[xviii] Supra note 7
[xix] Goldsack v. Shore, (1950) 1 KB 708
[xx] Hillen and Pettigrew v. ICI (Alkali) Ltd, (1936) AC 65
[xxi] R v. Pratt, (1855) 119 ER 3198
[xxii] Supra note 10
[xxiii] R v. London CC, (1918) 1 KB 68
[xxiv] R (Beresford) v. Sunderland CC, (2004) 1 AC 889
[xxv] Muskett v. Hill (1839) 5 Bing (NC) 694
[xxvi] Supra note 7
[xxvii] Mithan Lal v. Ram Chandra, 1963 AWR (HC) 200
[xxviii] B. B. Katiyar, Law of Easements and Licences, 14th Edn. (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2012) at 900
[xxix] Booker v. Palmer, (1942) 2 All ER 674
[xxx] Cubb v. Lane, (1952) 1 All ER 1199 (1202)
[xxxi] Street v. Mountford  AC 809
[xxxii] Bhaurao A. Kasar v. Vinod R. Kasar, 2006 (2) Bom. CR 201
[xxxiii] Swapan Sinha v. Usha Rani Sahana, 2001 (3) Cal. LT (HC) 166
[xxxiv] Vishnu v. Rango Ganesh, 18 Bom. 385
[xxxv] Supra note 10
[xxxvi] Section 8, Indian Easements Act.
[xxxvii] Illustration (c) to Section 8 of Indian Easements Act
[xxxviii] Municipal Committee Ambala v. Lal Chand 1969 Cur. LJ 580 (Punj.)
[xxxix] Supra note 7
[xl] Aggrawal and Modi Enterprises v. NDMC, 123 (2005) DLT 154
[xli] Ludhichem Industries v. Ahmed R. V. Peer Mohammad, AIR 1981 SC 1998
[xlii] Jaganath v. Jayantilal, AIR 1980 Guj. 41
[xliii] Supra note 13
[xliv] Section 54, 69, 107 and 123 of Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act
[xlv] Ramsden v. Dyson, 1 HL 129
[xlvi] Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. King, AIR 1932 PC 108
[xlvii] Pratap Singh v. Dhun Singh, 13 ALJR 886
[xlviii] Kesava v. Puddu, 1 Mad. HCR 258