JUDGMENT B.M. Lall, J. - This is a Defendants' appeal. The suit which has given rise to it was instituted by one Srimati Kishni. With the plaint she filed a map showing the area in dispute. It is marked red in that map and it forms one-half share of a bigger area. It is known as a Bagichi. Within this area is a temple of Hanumanji which was constructed by her husband but it was not her case that any portion of this Bagichi, except the temple, was dedicated to the deity. According to her the Bagichi was owned by her husband Minna Lal Chaubey. After her husband's death, she claimed tide to it by right of inheritance and in the alternative under a Will executed by her husband. As a third alternative, she alleged that she had been in peaceful possession thereof and had a possessory title thereto. The grievance she made was that the Appellants wanted to visit the Bagichi, take bhang there and use the land as Akhara. She sought an injunction restraining them from putting the Bagichi in question to such uses. Further she prayed that in case her possession was not found proved, a decree for possession might also be awarded to her. 2. In order to make the suit a representative one, she took steps under Order 1, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure, so that all persons interested in asserting a right to use the disputed land for akhara and allied purposes might be represented. 3. The Appellants resisted the suit. Their contention was that the entire Bagichi was dedicated to and was owned by Hanumanji. Further, they contended that they had a right to use this land for akhara and for taking bhang and holding parties. They raised the plea of limitation also. 4. The learned Civil Judge overruled all these pleas. He held that the Bagichi in question was the property of Minna Lal Chaubey and after his death, it devolved on Srimati Kishni. Further, he held that Minna Lal Chaubey was a well-known Ustad, that a large number of pupils went to him to learn wresding, and that the persons who went there did so by leave and licence of Minna Lal Chaubey and therefore, had no right to go there after his death particularly when his legal representative did not want them to be there. In the result, he decreed the suit. 5. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Defendants have come up in appeal. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, Srimati Kishni died. Before her death, she dedicated the property to Hanumanji who has been substituted as her legal representative in her place, and who is now the Respondent. 6. It is now the common case of the parties that Hanumanji is the owner of this Bagichi. Some arguments were addressed to us as to whether Hanumanji was a private idol or a public idol and whether the temple dedicated to Hanumanji is a private temple or a public temple. So far as the private or public nature of the idol is concerned, we can do no better than quote the dictum of Malik, C.J., in Doongarsee Syamji Joshi and Ors. v. Mukhia Tirbhuwan Das and Ors. 1947 A.W.R. (H.C.) 32 at page 36 which runs as follows: There is really no such thing as an idol which is the private property of an individual or a family or which belongs to the public. According to Hindu philosophy, an idol, when it is installed in a temple is the physical personification of the deity and after consecration the stone image gets its soul breathed into it. Before an idol can be installed in a temple, the temple must be dedicated to it and it becomes its private properly. 7. But a distinction in a public and private temple does exit. In a private temple, the public at large has no right of worship or right of management. In a public temple, however, they can have access to the temple for the purpose of worship and they can take part in its management also. In the present case, however, we are relieved from the necessity of deciding whether or not the temple which exists in this Bagichi is a public or a private temple because the learned Counsel for the Respondent is prepared to concede the rig ht of access to members of the public for the purpose of performing the worship of Hanumanji. But he maintains that no one should be permitted to use this Bagichi for keeping akhara or taking bhang or similar other purposes. In our opinion, this contention is scund. But he maintains that no one should be permitted to use this Bagichi for keeping akhara or taking bhang or similar other purposes. In our opinion, this contention is scund. The Bagichi is now the property of Hanumanji and a deity can also object to persons putting the land owned by it to unauthorised use just as much as any private individual can. As the owner of the Bagichi, Hanumanji can legitimately demand that no one should enter the Bagichi except for purposes of worshipping him. 8. It is true that during the life-time of Minna Lal Chaubey who was the predecessor-in-interest of the present owner of the Bagichi, his pupils used to visit this Bagichi and they maintained an akhara therein. But this was done by his leave out licence. After his death the licence was revoked particularly when his legal representatives objected to members of the public entering into the Bagichi for purpose of holding wrestling bouts or taking bhang. 9. Yet another argument was advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. He contended that his clients had put up buildings and had made some constructions in this Bagichi and the licence had, theretore, become irrevocable. Oral evidence was produced to show that some subscriptions were raised by the public. But there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that the subscriptions so collected were spent in making any constructions. Possibly they might have been raised for holding bhang parties or meeting the expenses of maintaining the akhara. Thus it is not established that any existing constructions in the Bagichi were made by the Appellants. Moreover, the prohibition against the revocation of a licence as contained in Section 60 of the Easements Act becomes applicable when a licensee "acting upon the licence" makes constructions. This means that where the licence is granted for building purposes, or where constructions are made for purposes necessary for the enjoyment of thelicence, the licence becomes irrevocable when constructions are made in pursuance thereof. But this does not mean that if a person is permitted to visit a particular place just to learn wrestling, he can put up a building and claim that his licence which was confined to his visiting the place for wrestling, entitled him to make constructions thereon and has become irrevocable. But this does not mean that if a person is permitted to visit a particular place just to learn wrestling, he can put up a building and claim that his licence which was confined to his visiting the place for wrestling, entitled him to make constructions thereon and has become irrevocable. We are of the opinion that even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that some constructions have been made by the Appellants in this Bagichi, they were not made "acting upon the licence". The result, therefore, is that the Appellants have so right to visit or otherwise remains in the Bagichi except for the purpose of worshiping Hanumanji. 10. The result therefore is that we allow the appeal in part. The decree passed by the court below is modified to this extent that the Appellants shall have a right to visit the Baghchi in question for the purpose of carrying on the worship of Hanumanji. In other respects, the decree is maintained. In view of the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs of this Court.