JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J. The plaintiff has called in question judgment and decree dated 10-5-2001 passed by Second Addl. District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No. 12-A/2000. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for possession and for mesne profit with respect to the ancestral suit house situated at Marwadi Road, Bhopal. The property was owned by late Kunj Manohar Lal and Leeladhar. Their names were recorded as owner till 1923. Kunj Manohar Lal died issueless leaving behind Leeladhar as his only surviving legal representative. Leeladhar had three sons, namely Roshan Lal, Udaybhan and Bhanu Prakash. Bhanu Prakash died issueless sometime in the year 1939. Roshan Lal died in 1941 and Udaybhan also died in the year 1980. The share of Bhanu Prakash devolved upon Roshan Lal and Udaybhan and after their death property devolved on the plaintiffs the sons of Udaybhan and Roshan Lal. The plaintiffs averred that after death of Leeladhar, Roshan Lal and Udaybhan performed marriage of defendant No. 1 Smt. Sheelwati with Master Bhairo Prasad, who was a worker of Hindu Mahasabha, at the relevant time Nawab Hamidullah Khan was the Ruler of Bhopal, as such erstwhile Ruler was not happy due to activities of Bhairo Prasad. He had eight brothers, they wanted Bhairo Prasad to reside separately as they were in the service of erstwhile Ruler and the income of Bhairo Prasad was also insufficient. Considering the aforesaid difficulties faced by Smt. Sheelwati and Master Bhairo Prasad, Smt. Sheelwati was given the licence to reside in the part of disputed portion of the house. After death of Roshan Lal and Udaybhan, the licence was continued. As the defendants required further accommodation, additional two rooms were given on the ground floor to run a Typing Institute. They also constructed a underground water tank. The plaintiff wanted to dismantle the old structure and to reconstruct some of the portion of the house. However, defendants asserted their ownership and filed a Civil Suit in the Court of 7th ADJ, Bhopal for declaration of title, hence a notice was served by the plaintiffs on 1-1-1998 terminating the licence. The defendants were required to vacate the accommodation by 1-2-1998. The defendants did not reply nor vacated the house in spite of cancellation of licence, hence instant suit for ejectment and mesne profit was filed. The defendants were required to vacate the accommodation by 1-2-1998. The defendants did not reply nor vacated the house in spite of cancellation of licence, hence instant suit for ejectment and mesne profit was filed. The defendants in their written statement denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that the date of death of Kunj Manohar Lal was not disclosed in the plaint. Leeladhar had eight daughters, one of them was defendant No. 1 Smt. Sheelwati. It was denied that Roshan Lal and Udaybhan succeeded to the property left by Leeladhar and Bhanu Prakash. Harish Chandra, an eldest son of Roshan Lal had sold certain portion of house No. 128. It was denied after death of Leeladhar, marriage of defendant No. 1 was performed by Roshan Lal and Udaybhan, in fact the marriage was performed by Banshidhar, elder brother of Leeladhar. Other facts were also denied. It was also specifically denied that Roshan Lal and Udaybhan inducted defendant Smt. Sheelwati as licensee, in fact Laxmi Narayan Agrawal, uncle of defendant No. 1 gave the disputed house "forever" to Shri Bhairo Prasad, husband of defendant No. 1 and thereafter for the last 65 years they have remained in occupation as its owner, their status as licensee was specifically denied. No cause of action arose to the plaintiff. The right in property was given to Bhairo Prasad forever and defendants remained in possession as owner. Bhairo Prasad obtained electricity connection etc. and enjoyed the property as an owner. The parties have adduced, oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff as per impugned judgment and decree. The trial Court has found that Roshan Lal and Udaybhan had succeeded to the property left by Leeladhar and Bhanu Prakash. Roshan Lal and Udaybhan had given the licence to defendant No. 1 Smt. Sheelwati and Bhairo Prasad. Their possession has continued for the last 65 years and on death of the grantor Udaybhan in the year 1980, their possession became adverse to the interest of plaintiffs, they perfected their title by adverse possession, consequently this appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs. Shri Alok Aradhe, learned counsel appearing for appellant/plaintiff has submitted that the Court below erred in law in holding that defendants have remained in adverse possession. Shri Alok Aradhe, learned counsel appearing for appellant/plaintiff has submitted that the Court below erred in law in holding that defendants have remained in adverse possession. There was no pleading of adverse possession and acquisition of title by it as such finding of adverse possession recorded by trial Court is bad in law. The trial Court erred in holding that licence given to the defendant and husband came to an end on death of grantor/licensor. The Trial Judge has not correctly understood the ratio of decision in Ishwarlal Vyas Vs. District Judge and Another, . The finding that first floor and ground floor both were let out as licensee to defendant No. 1 is perverse. Only part of premises was given as licensee in 1934, Licensee cannot prescribe adverse possession, thus judgment and decree passed by the trial Court be set aside. It was submitted by Shri R.P. Agrawal, learned Sr. counsel that theory of licence was manufactured by the plaintiffs to seek eviction, no date, month or year of it's creation was pleaded. There was no clinching evidence adduced to prove creation of licence. The property was given to Bhairo Prasad in ownership rights forever, it was a void grant. An electric meter was installed in the premises in the year 1946 by Shri Bhairo Prasad. Smt. Sheelwati was not only born in the suit premises but resided till her death in her own rights. The defendants have perfected their title by virtue of adverse possession. As the case of grant of licence has not been established, suit was liable to be dismissed. He has further submitted that even if it was a case of void grant, right was perfected by remaining in possession for the last 65 years. He has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs. The Dalhousie Institute Society, . He has further submitted that even if it was a case of void grant, right was perfected by remaining in possession for the last 65 years. He has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs. The Dalhousie Institute Society, . He has further submitted that as permanent structure in the shape of water tank was constructed, electricity and water connections were obtained, licence if it was granted became irrevocable, as per section 60(b) of Easement Act, he has submitted that defendants became full owner by virtue of section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, he has emphasized on the words "or any other manner whatsoever" used in section 14 is of wider connotation, hence the defendants by remaining in possession till 1956 perfected the title in the house, in this regard he has also relied upon the decision of Apex Court in Velamuri Venkata Sivaprasad (D)By Lrs. Vs. Kothuri Venkateswarlu (D)By Lrs. Ors., and decision of Kerala High Court in Jose Vs. Ramakrishnan Nair, . He has also referred to Mulla's Hindu Law to contend that at the relevant time daughter Sheelwati had inherited limited interest in the property left by her father, she was in possession in 1956 when Hindu Succession Act came into force, hence her right was enlarged u/s 14 in his submission, it is immaterial for the purpose of section 14(1) whether possession was under the grant or permissive or in the ownership right, even permissive possession under a void grant is included within the ken of section 14(1). The property tax was paid to Municipal Corporation as apparent from receipts (D-1 to D-5). A electricity meter was also installed, hence, plaintiffs were not entitled to seek ejectment or to seek mesne profit. No case for interference in this appeal was thus made out. First coming to the question whether defendant No. 1 Smt. Sheelwati and her husband Bhairo Prasad were inducted as licensee by Roshan Lal and Udaybhan. The trial Court has found that they were inducted as licensee. Shri R. P. Agrawal has submitted that plea of licensee has not been established whereas Shri Alok Aradhe has submitted that the ground floor was not given on license only a part of premises on first floor was given on licence in the year 1934. The trial Court has found that they were inducted as licensee. Shri R. P. Agrawal has submitted that plea of licensee has not been established whereas Shri Alok Aradhe has submitted that the ground floor was not given on license only a part of premises on first floor was given on licence in the year 1934. Other portion was given subsequently, thus it becomes necessary to consider the evidence and whether finding recorded by the trial Court as to Bhairo Prasad being a licensee is correct. It was not in dispute that Bhairo Prasad was a worker of Hindu Mahasabha and erstwhile Ruler of Bhopal was not happy with his activities. Rameshwar Dayal Shrivastava (PW-1) has stated that he knew Smt. Sheelwati since 1930. Bhairo Prasad did not enjoy good relations with his father and brothers. Smt. Sheelwati came back to the house as she was not treated properly by her in-laws and started living with Bhairo Prasad in the house. First floor was given for the purpose of their residence, no separate portion was given. They were living along with other family members. He heard that Kunj Manohar Lal used to live with Leeladhar. Sheelwati and her husband Bhairo Prasad started living in the house in 1930, he did not remember when Bhairo Prasad died. He was not aware who was paying the tax of the house. Defendant No. 1 was born in the house and she lived in the same house after her marriage. Shri Ravindra Prakash Shrivastava (PW-2) has stated that Kunj Manohar Lal died issueless in the year 1921. Leeladhar succeeded to him. Leeladhar died in the year 1932, he had three sons namely Roshan Lal, Udaybhan and Bhanu Prakash. Bhanu Prakash died unmarried at the age of 16-17 years in the year 1939. Roshan Lal died in the year 1941 and later on Udaybhan died in the year 1980. Sheelwati's marriage was performed in the year 1939 after death of Leeladhar with Master Bhairo Prasad. Considering various difficulties faced by Sheelwati, his father Leeladhar, Roshan Lal and Udaybhan brought her to the parental house and gave first floor towards North-West side for the purpose of their residence as licensee. The house was not given to them forever. Sheelwati later on asked for permission to start the Typing Institute, consequently permission was given to start it on the ground floor in the red marked portion. The house was not given to them forever. Sheelwati later on asked for permission to start the Typing Institute, consequently permission was given to start it on the ground floor in the red marked portion. For blue marked portion a license was given in 1934. With their permission underground water tank was constructed by the defendants. They paid the Municipal taxes. His father told to him about licence. Sheelwati after 3-4 years of marriage came back to the house in the year 1937-38. They had not taken any steps for ejectment of defendants for the last 60 years. A electricity connection was obtained in the name of Bhairo Prasad in the year 1946. He was unable to deny that the tax was deposited in the Corporation by Chandra Mohan son of Bhairo Prasad. He also claimed that in fact plaintiffs paid the Municipal taxes. Tribhuvan Lal Shrivastava (PW-3) has stated that he resided in the house w.e.f 1944 till 1948, thereafter from 1955 to 1957. Plaintiffs are related to him, he is son of maternal aunt. When his sister Sheela died, her body was kept in the ground floor of disputed premises. He attended the marriages which were performed in the plaintiff's family. He was not aware for how many years Sheelwati was residing in house. Marriage of Bhairo Prasad with Sheelwati was performed before 17 years and they resided in the suit house after their marriage with the permission of Roshan Lal and Udaybhan but permission to reside as licensee was not given in his presence, his aforesaid statement, was based on information given by Udaybhan. Ravishankar Khare (PW-4) yet another relative claimed that, he resided in the house for some time in the year 1965 at the time of marriage of Maya, daughter of Udaybhan, house was big, Sheelwati told that Roshan Lal and Udaybhan had given the house to her for the purpose of residence. He was informed by his father that house was owned by Kunj Manohar Lal and Leeladhar. Earlier he came to the suit house in the year 1957 along with his father and went back after one or two days. He was not aware for how many years Sheelwati was residing in the suit house. He was not aware of the position before 1964-65. He was not aware whether house was given to Bhairo Prasad. Earlier he came to the suit house in the year 1957 along with his father and went back after one or two days. He was not aware for how many years Sheelwati was residing in the suit house. He was not aware of the position before 1964-65. He was not aware whether house was given to Bhairo Prasad. He was also not aware whether property tax was deposited by the family of Bhairo Prasad. Rameshwar Prasad (PW.-5) has stated that he came to Bhopal on transfer in the year 1966, he knew plaintiff Ravi Prakash and obtained one of the rooms on rent for the period of one year, Udaybhan was managing the property, Udaybhan was in possession of the disputed ground floor portion and died in the year 1980, he had participated in his last rites, as Udaybhan treated him as his son, the defendants were residing in the house owned by Udaybhan, he was not aware who had how much share in the house, he was not aware how many electricity meters were fitted in the house, he was not aware of the Typing Institute, the defendants had separate water connection. Smt. Buddhimati Devi (PW-6) daughter of Leeladhar and sister of Sheelwati has stated that she was born in the year 1921. Her marriage was performed in the year 1943. At that time Bhanu Prakash and Roshan Lal were not alive. Marriage of Sheelwati was performed with Bhairo Prasad by Roshan Lal and Udaybhan. Sheelwati was given permission to reside on the first floor along with Bhairo Prasad. Laxmi Narayan was not alive at that time. Laxmi Narayan did not give the house to Sheelwati to reside. Bhairo Prasad had obtained electricity and water connection. She was not aware whether Bhairo Prasad had also paid the municipal taxes. She was not aware if the property was given forever to Master Bhairo Prasad. Sheelwati (DW-1) has stated that after her marriage in the year 1934 she resided in in-laws' house for six months, thereafter, Kunj Manohar Lal brought Bhairo Prasad and gave the first floor forever and also ground floor portions. She was not aware if the property was given forever to Master Bhairo Prasad. Sheelwati (DW-1) has stated that after her marriage in the year 1934 she resided in in-laws' house for six months, thereafter, Kunj Manohar Lal brought Bhairo Prasad and gave the first floor forever and also ground floor portions. Bhairo Prasad obtained electricity and water connections and paid municipal taxes as apparent from receipts, Smt. Buddhimati Devi (PW-6) was 8-10 years younger to her, at the time of her marriage age of Buddhimati was 6-7 years, the ground floor portion was not given subsequently, it was in their possession right from beginning, in the same portion earlier Kunj Manohar Lal; used to reside, she was not aware after how many years of her marriage Kunj Manohar Lal died, before her marriage her father Leeladhar had died, Laxmi Narayan did not induct her husband Bhairo Prasad in the suit house. She has denied that Roshan Lal and Udaybhan brought her to the suit house. Bhairo Prasad died in the year 1962. When the house was given, no written deed was executed. Her son Chandra Mohan had purchased a house at Idgaah Hills. Rajendra Saxena (DW-2) has stated that marriage of his mother Sheelwati was performed in 1934, his father Bhairo Prasad died on 29-5-1961, he was born in the suit house and used to maintain the house, the house was given forever. A Typing Institute was also started by his brother, his father Bhairo Prasad was not inducted as a licensee. Water and electricity connections were in the name of his father Bhairo Prasad. Electricity, water dues and municipal taxes were paid as per receipts (Ex. D-1 to D-4). Udaybhan told to him that Kunj Manohar Lal brought Bhairo Prasad to the house in question Kunj Manohar Lal died in the year 1935 not in the year 1921. He was not aware in Nazul Deptt. whose name was recorded over the suit house. Shahid Ansari (DW-3) has stated that when his sister was migrating to Pakistan, she offered her house to Shri Bhairo Prasad, he refused to accept an offer stating that house in question was given forever to him. Savitri Saxena (DW-4) sister-in-law of Sheelwati stated that at the time of marriage of Bhairo Prasad, Sheel Kumar and Kafka Prasad were alive. Kalka Prasad was major and age of Sheel Kumar was less. Savitri Saxena (DW-4) sister-in-law of Sheelwati stated that at the time of marriage of Bhairo Prasad, Sheel Kumar and Kafka Prasad were alive. Kalka Prasad was major and age of Sheel Kumar was less. Master Bhairo Prasad had no share in the house situated at Peer Gate. She heard that house was given forever to Bhairo Prasad, it was not given for time being as licensee. Considering the aforesaid evidence adduced by the parties coupled with the pleadings, it is clear that the defendant came to the Court with the plea that house was given to Bhairo Prasad by Laxmi Narayan. It is apparent that Leeladhar died in the year 1932, he left behind three sons namely Roshan Lal, Udaybhan and Bhanu Prakash. Sheelwati is daughter of late Leeladhar. Bhanu Prakash died young at the age of 16-17 years in the year 1939. Roshan Lal died in the year 1941 and Udaybhan died in the year 1980. Marriage of Sheelwati was performed with Bhairo Prasad in the year 1934 after the death of her father Leeladhar. Thus it is apparent that considering the activity of Bhairo Prasad of Hindu Mahasabha and various other difficulties faced by Sheelwati in in-laws' house, Roshan Lal and Udaybhan gave them the house for the purpose of their residence. What were the terms on which the house was given has to be considered in the case on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. It is also to be considered whether it was simpliciter licence given for the purpose of residence or it was coupled with the grant. Section 52 of the Easement Act, 1882 defines the licence 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 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 license. Section 60 of the Easement Act lays down that a license may be revoked by the grantor, unless it is coupled with a transfer of property and such transfer is in force and the licensee, acting upon the license, has executed a work of a permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution. Section 60 of the Easement Act lays down that a license may be revoked by the grantor, unless it is coupled with a transfer of property and such transfer is in force and the licensee, acting upon the license, has executed a work of a permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution. A licence coupled with creation of an interest in land is as binding and irrevocable as any other contract, gift or grant. In Narsing Das vs. Ratanlal and others, AIR 1915 Nag 29 it was laid down that licence coupled with void grant is revocable save (1) where the licensee entered into occupation and paid rent and (2) where the licensee, acting on the license, has executed a work of a permanent character and incurred expense in so doing. Discussing the various decisions it was also observed that a mere license is, in its nature, revocable and that a license coupled with a grant is irrevocable. In spite of void agreement in case licensee has entered into occupation and paid rent licence, cannot, therefore, be revoked at will. In Secretary of State vs. Hiranand Ojha and others, AIR 1918 Pat 366 where the plaintiff allowed defendant to execute and work out on his land irrigation scheme of considerable benefit, at considerable expense, it was held that agreement created licence, which could not be revoked at the instance of the plaintiff. In AIR 1940 18 (Lahore) , it was held that sinking well and erecting compound wall are works of permanent character within the meaning of section 60 of Easement Act. In Biswanath Panda vs. Gadadhar Panda and another, AIR 1971 Ori 115 , it was laid down that though section 60 is not applicable in Cuttack at the relevant time, principles contained therein were held to be applicable. It was also held that mere licence is revocable but where it is coupled with a grant, it becomes irrevocable. Where there is no formal document embodying the terms of agreement, the intention is to be inferred from surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties. In Biswanath Panda (supra) it was held thus : 13. A mere licence does not create any estate or interest in the property to which it relates. It only confers legality on an act which would otherwise become unlawful. A licence may be purely personal, gratuitous or contractual. In Biswanath Panda (supra) it was held thus : 13. A mere licence does not create any estate or interest in the property to which it relates. It only confers legality on an act which would otherwise become unlawful. A licence may be purely personal, gratuitous or contractual. The first two classes of mere licenses are revocable, the third class is revocable or not revocable according to the express or implied terms of the contract between the parties. A license coupled with grant of an interest in nature of property is not revocable. Such a license has been stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 23 (3rd Edn.) page 432 to be A right to enter on land and enjoy a profit a prendre or other incorporeal hereditament. The Bhopal State Easement Act (Act 7 of 1337 Mohammadi) was promulgated which contained similar provision to that of Easement Act, 1882, thus there is no difficulty with respect to applicability of the provision of Easement Act as provisions were pari-materia. Similarly the provisions of Bhopal State Transfer of Property Act was similar to the T.P. Act 1882 with respect to disposition of the property. In Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and Others, , their Lordships laid down that facts and circumstances have to be considered in each case. It was held in the facts and circumstances, that school was permitted to occupy and enjoy the land permanently for the purpose of education and it would be reasonable to infer implied condition that the license was irrevocable. The Apex Court has laid down thus: 13...................These facts and circumstances point out the terms and conditions of the license, that the school was permitted to occupy and enjoy the land permanently for the purpose of education. In this background, it would be reasonable to infer an implied condition that the license was irrevocable and the school was permitted to occupy and use the premises so long as it continued the purpose of imparting education to the students. In Ishwarlal Vyas Vs. District Judge and Another, it was laid down that license is personal and terminated on the death of licensor. Similar view was taken in Mohammed Khan Vs. Ramnarayan Misra and Others, and in Barselal vs. Badri Prasad, AIR 1922 Nag 162 it was held that licensee becomes trespasser after licensor's death. In Ishwarlal Vyas Vs. District Judge and Another, it was laid down that license is personal and terminated on the death of licensor. Similar view was taken in Mohammed Khan Vs. Ramnarayan Misra and Others, and in Barselal vs. Badri Prasad, AIR 1922 Nag 162 it was held that licensee becomes trespasser after licensor's death. There is no dispute with the aforesaid preposition, however, in the instant case facts and circumstances point out that it was a licence coupled with the grant of interest in the nature of property. The surrounding circumstances makes it clear that the grant was not confined but house was intended to be given for the purpose of residence not only to Bhairo Prasad and Sheelwati but also by their family in future also for the purpose of their residence. Thus the licence was not revocable at will. It has been admitted by the plaintiffs that after death of Bhairo Prasad in the year 1961, Udaybhan died in the year 1980, Sheelwati continued to occupy the accommodation along with her children and the accommodation all along has been used for the purpose of residence of the family. It is also apparent that at no point of time any effort was made to seek the eviction till the filing of the suit by the plaintiff for a long period of 65 years. Admittedly electricity connection was obtained in 1946 by late Bhairo Prasad husband of Sheelwati, water connection was also obtained independently by Bhairo Prasad. Apart from that to the knowledge of the plaintiff, they were allowed to lay underground water tank which indicate that the ground floor portion was also in possession of defendant. Consequently they were allowed to raise construction of underground water tank for the purpose of their user. Plaintiffs have filed receipt of Municipal taxes (P-2 and P-4) of the year 1992-93 and 1996-97. It was only after a Civil Suit No. 42-A/97 was filed by Sheelwati that a notice dated 1-1-1998 terminating the licence was served by plaintiffs. Defendants have also filed receipt (P-3) of deposit of municipal tax of the year 1995 and 1996, (D-4) for the year 1996-97 showing the deposit by Chandra Mohan. A receipt (D-5) was issued by Municipal Corporation, Bhopal in the name of Sheelwati for the year 1997-98. Defendants have also filed receipt (P-3) of deposit of municipal tax of the year 1995 and 1996, (D-4) for the year 1996-97 showing the deposit by Chandra Mohan. A receipt (D-5) was issued by Municipal Corporation, Bhopal in the name of Sheelwati for the year 1997-98. Thus it can be gathered that there was licence coupled with the grant of interest in the property to the defendants to reside. The grant was not limited, grant was made in favour of Bhairo Prasad and Sheelwati even if it was a void grant, the conduct of the parties indicate that it continued in the favour of the family, thus it was a nature of grant which was irrevocable. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it can be inferred from the conduct of the parties that house was not given for temporary occupation. The aforesaid acts in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case makes it irrevocable though the aforesaid acts in other facts and circumstances may not be held sufficient to create an irrevocable licence. Coming to the submission raised by Shri R.P. Agrawal learned Sr. Counsel appearing for respondents, based on section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. It has to be found what existing right Sheelwati had obtained on death of her father Leeladhar in 1932. She was unmarried at that time and Leeladhar was survived by three sons, thus I am unable to accept the submission made by Shri Agrawal, learned Sr. Counsel that Sheelwati inherited interest in the property. Mulla's Hindu Law Para-43 makes it clear that son, grandson and great grandson and after 14-4-1937 widow, predeceased son's widow and predeceased son's predeceased son's widow succeed simultaneously. Daughter could succeed only in case all the widows were dead and there were no sons, thus I reject the submission that in the year 1932 limited right in the property was inherited by Sheelwati while she was unmarried. Section 14(1) is applicable with respect to limited interest and not de hors of same as laid down by Apex Court in Velamuri Venkata Sivaprasad (D)By Lrs. Vs. Kothuri Venkateswarlu (D)By Lrs. Ors., . Section 14(1) renders no help to the defendants. In Vidya (Smt) Vs. Section 14(1) is applicable with respect to limited interest and not de hors of same as laid down by Apex Court in Velamuri Venkata Sivaprasad (D)By Lrs. Vs. Kothuri Venkateswarlu (D)By Lrs. Ors., . Section 14(1) renders no help to the defendants. In Vidya (Smt) Vs. Nand Ram alias Asoop Ram (Dead) by LRs., , it was held that section 14(1) clearly says that any property possessed by a female Hindu whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act shall be held by her as full owner and not as a limited owner. The third wife acquired her right in lieu of maintenance under the Will of 1932 and it was held that subsection (1) of section 14 includes a property held by her in lieu of maintenance and right of such female under sub-section (1) of section 14 makes her the absolute owner. To read "female Hindu" as only "wife" is totally misconceived. But in the instant case no such limited estate was inherited nor Sheelwati was holding the property under limited right envisaged u/s 14 or any other manner has to be interpreted ejusdem generis with some kind of right akin to limited ownership of which enlargement was given u/s 14. In Velamuri Venkata Sivaprasad (dead) by LRs vs. Kothuri Venkateswarlu (dead) by LRs and others (supra) it was held that a limited right of maintenance permeates into an absolute right u/s 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act but in the event of there being a re-marriage of the widow prior to 1956 the widow is divested of even the limited ownership of her deceased husband's property. In Vaddeboyina Tulasamma and others vs. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi (dead) by LRs, AIR 1977 SC 1944 , with regard to a Hindu female, acquiring property under compromise in lieu of satisfaction of her right of maintenance and the compromise prescribing limited interest, it was laid down that sub-section (1) of section 14 applies and she would become full owner of the property. In Jose Vs. Ramakrishnan Nair, father had put daughter in possession in his self acquired property. It was held, that would fall within the expression "or any other manner whatsoever". In Jose Vs. Ramakrishnan Nair, father had put daughter in possession in his self acquired property. It was held, that would fall within the expression "or any other manner whatsoever". In the instant case father has not put the daughter in possession of the property, she did not inherit the interest of the property at the time of death of her father, thus the decision is of no help to the defendants. In Daya Singh (Dead) through Lrs. and Another Vs. Dhan Kaur, , it was held that where a limited owner succeeds to an estate the succession to the estate on her death will have to be decided on the basis that the last full owner died on that day. There is no dispute with the aforesaid preposition but Sheelwati did not inherit the property as limited owner in the year 1932 when her father died. Thus I am unable to accept the submission that by virtue of section 14 the right of the defendant Sheelwati ripened on the full ownership. Whatever rights which were created have to be decided on the basis of grant made after her marriage. Coming to the question of adverse possession, I find that no such plea was taken in the written statement. In Gaya Parshad Dikshit Vs. Dr. Nirmal Chander and Another, it was laid down that mere termination of the licence does not enable licensee to claim adverse possession, he must assert hostile title in himself. In Nagar Palika Nigam, Gwalior Vs. Kailash Narain Srivastava and others, it was laid down that adverse possession should be pleaded and it is also trite law that when the possession converted into adverse possession has to be specifically stated as laid down in Bhura Mogiya and Ors. v. Satish Pagariya and Ors. . In Beni Madhavprasad and Others Vs. Rasklal Ambalal and Others, , after death of licensee possession of the family members was held to be permissive not adverse. Thus I am unable to agree with the finding of the trial Court that defendant perfected the title by virtue of adverse possession. Shri Agrawal, learned Sr. Counsel has relied upon State of West Bengal Vs. Rasklal Ambalal and Others, , after death of licensee possession of the family members was held to be permissive not adverse. Thus I am unable to agree with the finding of the trial Court that defendant perfected the title by virtue of adverse possession. Shri Agrawal, learned Sr. Counsel has relied upon State of West Bengal Vs. The Dalhousie Institute Society, , where grant was not in the manner required by law, the evidence showing that grantee was in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of site for over 60 years and institute was treated as owner not only by Municipal Corporation but also by Government. It was held that such person acquires the title by adverse possession. Facts of the aforesaid decision are different. In the instant case it was necessary to set up plea of adverse possession, that has not been set up hence I am unable to accept submission of the respondents' counsel or the finding of the trial Court. As this Court has found that licence was irrevocable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, appeal is dismissed but for the different reasons. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, leave the parties to bear their own costs as incurred of this appeal. Final Result : Dismissed