S. N. BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16-12-1980 passed by the first appellat Court in Title Appeal No. 455 of 1980 reversing the judgment dated 4-8-1980 passed by the Munsif, 2nd Court, Contai in Title Suit No. 67 of 1970. ( 2 ) ). The grand father of the plaintiffs purchased 8 cottahs 6 chittaks of land out of plot Nos. 2480, 2477, 2486 and 2490 from the father of the defendants by a registered kobala dated 24-9-1917 stipulating therein that the vendee would take water from the pond in Plot No. 2491 belonging to the defendant for the purpose of cultivation of plot No. 2489. The 'ka' schedule land which is a part 2490 plot is used as a passage for ingress and egress in plot No. 2489. the plaintiffs have been enjoying this right of taking water from plot No. 2491 as a right of easement for more than 20 years but the said right of easement in respect of plot No. 2491 has not been recorded in the R. S. record of right. Taking advantage of thisentry the defendants have been creating obstruction on the passage measuring 330 sq. links described in schedule'ka' of the plaint. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 67 of 1970 for recovery of khas possession in respect of 'ka' schedule land and declaration of easement right in plot No. 2491 as such the easement right has been acquired by prescription. The defendants denied the right of easement as claimed by the plaintiff. He has also denied that the plaintiff has ever used the 'ka' scheduled land as a passage at any point of time and the same is bastu land of the defendants where cowshed and tulsi mancha have been raised. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his easement right of taking water from the plot No. 2491 as such right was permissible in nature and no right of easement arose out of it. He also dismissed the plaintiffs' prayer for recovery of khas possession as the plaintiff has not prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish tulsi mancha of 'ka' schedule land. He also dismissed the plaintiffs' prayer for recovery of khas possession as the plaintiff has not prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish tulsi mancha of 'ka' schedule land. ( 4 ) IN appeal the first appellate Court reveresed the judgment of the trial Judge on finding that the plaintiffs have acquired right of easement by prescription independently of the contract for more than 20 years giving rise to right of easement by prescription and that the learned trial Judge fell in error in dismissing the plaintiffs' prayer for the Khas possession on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to make any prayer for mandatory injunction along with the prayer for khas possession. ( 5 ) THE substantial questions of law involving in this appeal have been formulated as under :- (I) "whether the 1st Appellate Court erred in law in holding that the plaintiffs have been exercising right of easement independently of the agreement. " (II) "whether the 1st Appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiffs have acquired right of easement over the suit tank by prescription. "both the points are taken up together from consideration as those are interlinked. The respondent in this case did not appear to contest the appeal despite service of notice. The Kobala which was withdrawn by him has not been produced. the appellate court quoted the recitals from the kobala in its judgment as under :-"it is revealed from the recitals of the kobala (ext. 4) that the father of the defendants granted right to the grand father of the plaintiffs to take water from the said pond for the purpose of cultivation of his Dhose land appertaining to plot No. 2489 and it is also inserted therein that neither he nor his successor-in-interest would ever raise any objection to the user of the said water of the pond by the grand father of the plaintiffs. "from this the learned appellate court has held as follows :-"but an agreement from which it appears that the right of enjoyment has been granted as an easement, not for a limited period or subject to any condition on the fulfilment of which it is to cease, but without any such limitation does not bar the accrual of the right by prescription. Permission for user does not in every case prevent the acquisition of an easement by prescription for enjoyment as of right, it is said is not to be confined to an adverse right, an enjoyment is as of right if it is had by permission. Whether an easement can be gained by user enjoyed by permission must depend upon surrounding circumstances, a material circumstance being the time when the permission was granted for on this point it has been laid down in judicial pronouncements that if the permission is given before the commencement and it extends over the whole period of prescription, the user is as of right and without interruption within the meaning of the act. "the learned appellate Court has further held,"it goes without saying that the said contract or agreement is not binding upon their respective successor-in-interest though there is a recital to the contrary in the said deed (ext. 4) executed in the year 1917. It is, therefore, as clear as anything that at least the father of the plaintiffs and there after the plaintiffs had and have been exercising the said right independently of the agreement executed between the grand father of the plaintiffs and the father of the defendants". ( 6 ) THE first appellate court has held that explanation-1 S. 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (for short 'act') is not applicable to the present case and the plaintiffs have acquired right of easement over the said tank by presecription. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the 1st appellate court has miserably failed to appreciate difference between licence and the easement and committed error in law. He has further contended that the learned 1st appellate Court has held that the said permission to take water from a pond belonging to the defendant is not binding upon the successor-in-interest of the vendor but still wrongly held that the right of easement was exercised by the plaintiffs and their predecessors as of right un interruptedly by more than 20 years without stating the period as to when such exercise of right became adverse to the owner of the tank. I find much substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. I find much substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned appellate court has failed to appreciate that licence does not create an interest in the land as it is merely leave to do a thing lawfully which otherwise will be unlawful and thus it is a matter purely personal between the grantor and the grantee of the licence. Section 52 of the Act defines licence in the following terms :-"where one person grants to A, or definite number of other persons, a right to do, or continue to do, in or upon the immovable property of the grantor, something which would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful and such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, the right is called a licence. "it is the case of the plaintiffs that the tank in plot No. 2491 belongs to the defendant and the 'ka' scheduled passage of 330 sq. link which is a part of plot No. 2490 belongs to the plaintiffs since purchase by virtue of the sale deed dated 24-9-1917. ( 8 ) BOTH the courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs has acquired title in 'ka' schedule land and are entitled to get khas possession. The learned appellate court rightly passed the decree for khas possession in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of 'ka' schedule land reversing the decision of the trial Judge that without a prayer for mandatory injunction the decree for khas possession cannot be allowed. ( 9 ) THE facts of this case, therefore, boil down to this that the plaintiffs have been permitted to take water from plot No. 2491 belonging to the defendants for cultivation of adjacent western plot No. 2489 and no easement was granted to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs cannot be heard to say that they exercised right of taking water from the tank as a matter of right and not as a matter of permission. Permission never matures into right. ( 10 ) IN Tan Bug Taim and others v. Collector of Bombay (reported in AIR 1946 Bombay 216 ). His Lordship Bhagwati, J. observed on this aspect :"the definitions of easements and of licences were to be found respectively in S. 4 and S. 52 of the Act. The distinction between easements and licenses has been well known to law. His Lordship Bhagwati, J. observed on this aspect :"the definitions of easements and of licences were to be found respectively in S. 4 and S. 52 of the Act. The distinction between easements and licenses has been well known to law. The very definition of a licence under S. 52 of the Act in terms of, lays down that a licence is the grant of a right to do something or to continue to do something in or upon the immovable property of the grantor which would in the absence of such right be unlawful and such does not amount to an easement of an interest in the property. It is unnecessary here to dilate upon the distinction between easements on the one hand and liceses on the other. Suffice it to say that these two conceptions are quite distinct the one from the other and it could not be urged by reason of the enactment of the provisions as to licences in the Easements Act that licences were included in easements. " ( 11 ) ). In Vidyasagar v. Ram Das reported in AIR 1976 All 415 , His Lordship observed,"india is predominantly an agrarian country where, speaking generally, the relation between cultivators is cordial and rests on mutual regard for the convenience of others. It is, therefore, too common for one cultivator to pass over the Mend of another cultivator as a means of access to his own field and such user of the Mend of one's field by another for purposes of agricultural operations and allied activities is, generally speaking, never objected to and is, therefore, nothing but permissive. No easementary right, therefore, can be acquired in this country by use of a mend as a way unless there is clear evidence of such user as a matter of right. "in view of the discussion made above I am of the opinion that the 1st appellate court erred in law in reversing the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge by declaring acquisition of easement right by prescription in favour of the respondents and accordingly such portion of the judgment is set aside. The respondents' claim of easement right in respect of 'a' schedule land for cultivation of'b' schedule dhosa is hereby dismissed. The respondents' claim of easement right in respect of 'a' schedule land for cultivation of'b' schedule dhosa is hereby dismissed. The title of the respondents in 'ka' schedule land as declared by the 1st Appellate Court along with the decree for khas possession is hereby affirmed. The suit is decreed in part on contest without cost. The appeal is thus disposed of. No order as to costs in this appeal. Order accordingly.