JUDGMENT : Ramchandra Singh Jhala, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.8.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Civil First Appeal No. 39/2010 whereby the judgment and decree dated 22.5.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Original Suit No. 21/2007 was set aside. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a particular part of plot where appellant-department constructed the room and set up a tube well. It was pleaded in the plaint that he purchased a plot No. 216 from Municipal Corporation, Chittorgarh in the year 1979. The appellant-defendants on survey found that there was ground water below the said plot and they requested the respondent-plaintiff to allow them to set up a tube well on the said plot for water supply in the locality for which the respondent-plaintiff allowed. Thereafter the respondent-plaintiff felt necessary to raise construction of a room for his son and requested the appellant-defendants to remove the tube well etc. and hand over the entire possession but appellant-defendant denied then he gave a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. Thereafter also the respondent-plaintiff prayed to remove the said tube well and room, but in vain. Thus, the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit against the appellant-defendants. 3. The written statements were filed by the appellant-defendants wherein all the facts of the plaint were denied by them and stated that no consent was taken by the appellant-defendants from the respondent-plaintiff and the tube well was main source of water supply to the nearby locality. They also stated that setting up of tube well and construction of room was made according to permission of Municipal Board's officer. 4. In rejoinder, the plaintiff-respondent had pleaded that the Municipal Corporation had no authority to give permission to install tube well in his plot. 5. They also stated that setting up of tube well and construction of room was made according to permission of Municipal Board's officer. 4. In rejoinder, the plaintiff-respondent had pleaded that the Municipal Corporation had no authority to give permission to install tube well in his plot. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed following issues:- ¼1½ vk;k okni= ds pj.k la[;k 1 esa of.kZr oknh ds LokfeRo ,oa vkf/kiR; ds Hkw[k.M+ ij izfroknh la[;k 2 o 3 dh vuqefr ls V~;wcoSy ,oa IyksV ds mRrjh&if'peh dksus ij ikoj :e dejk dk fuekZ.k fd;k ftls oknh dh vuqefr [kRe dj nsus ds ckotwn Hkh ugha gVk;k x;k gS\ oknh ¼2½ vk;k oknh izfroknh la[;k 2 o 3 ds }kjk oknh ds LokfeRo ,oa vkf/kiR; ds Hkw[k.M+ ij yxk;s x;s V~;wcosy ,oa ikoj :e dks gVokdj bldk dCtk izkfIr dh vf/kdkjh gS\ oknh ¼3½ vk;k okni= vof/k ckgj gS\ oknh ¼4½ vuqrks"k\ oknh 6. The learned trial court decided the issues No. 1 and 2 against the respondent-plaintiff and issue No. 3 against the appellant-defendants. 7. The learned trial court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record had dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 22.5.2010. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and decree of learned trial court, the respondent-plaintiff preferred first appeal before the District Judge, Chittorgarh which was allowed by the learned appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 21.8.2010. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and decree of the learned first appellate court, the appellant-defendants have filed the present second appeal. 8. On 27.4.2011 at the time of admission of this appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether first appellate court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court that had dismissed plaintiff's suit for declaration and possession of the suit land? 2. Whether first appellate court was justified in holding that plaintiff was able to prove his ownership over the suit land so also oral licence granted to the defendant for setting up tube well on the suit land. 3. Is there any evidence to sustain the finding of ownership of plaintiff so also the oral licence in favour of defendant for setting up a tube well. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. 3. Is there any evidence to sustain the finding of ownership of plaintiff so also the oral licence in favour of defendant for setting up a tube well. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendants has contended that the learned trial court passed a reasoned judgment, therefore, no interference should have been called for by the learned first appellate court. It is also contended that appellant-defendants have proved that the tube well was in operation since 1983 and in this regard electricity bills were also produced. 11. It is further stated that the appellant-department is using the tube well without interruption since 1983. Further it is also contended that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was time barred and same was rightly dismissed by the trial court. The learned first appellate court has decreed the suit by observing that it was a case of licence which was revoked by the respondent-plaintiff. Neither there was any pleading regarding existence of any licence nor there was any issue regarding existence or non-existence of any licence, therefore, the decree of learned first appellate court is without jurisdiction and illegal. 12. In view of above contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has prayed that the present second appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court may be quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court may be confirmed. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court and contended that the learned first appellate court has passed the judgment and decree after proper appreciation of evidence available on record and according to the provisions of law and there is no error in the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court, therefore, the present second appeal may kindly be dismissed. 14. Upon perusal of record, it is clear that the case of the respondent-plaintiff is that he purchased the suit property from Municipal Board, Chittorgarh, for which a patta was issued on 2nd September, 1979 and he is owner and same is in his possession. 14. Upon perusal of record, it is clear that the case of the respondent-plaintiff is that he purchased the suit property from Municipal Board, Chittorgarh, for which a patta was issued on 2nd September, 1979 and he is owner and same is in his possession. The appellant-department PHED in 1983 after taking permission from the respondent-plaintiff set up a tube well in his plot with his permission for supply of water to the nearby locality. 15. The appellant-department in their written statement also admitted that the said tube-well was set up at said plot in the year 1983, but the averment of the appellant-department is that the officer of Nagar Palika authorized them to set up the tube-well in the suit property, but in written statement, no specific averment has been made by the appellant-department that on what day and who officer in what capacity told him to set up the tube well in the said plot, however, it is specifically denied in the written statement that they did obtain any permission from the respondent-plaintiff for setting up the tube well. 16. Upon perusal of record, it is proved that the place where the tube well had been set up by the appellant-department, is in possession of the respondent-plaintiff and also he is owner of the said suit property. 17. In the trial court, the respondent-plaintiff produced his patta Ex.1 which was issued by the Nagar Palika, Chittorgarh to the respondent-plaintiff and a construction permission Ex.3 was also produced by the respondent-plaintiff in the trial court which proves that Nagar Palika, Chittorgarh had permitted the respondent-plaintiff for construction over the said plot. 18. The learned trial court in para No. 10 of its judgment has also observed as under:- ^^nLrkosth lk{; esa uxjikfydk }kjk tkjh iV~Vk izŒ 1 iV~Vs ds lkFk layXu utjh uD'kk izn'kZŒ 2] uxjikfydk dh btktr izŒ 30 uxjikfydk }kjk Lohd`fr izŒ 40 utjh uD'kk izn'kZ 5 uksfVl dh dkcZu izfrŒ izŒ6 iksLVy jlhnsa izŒ 7] 8] 9 izkfIr jlhnsa] izn'kZ 10] 11] 12 miHkksDrk eap esa vkosnu dh izekf.kr izfr] izŒ 13 miHkksDrk eap dh vknsf'kdk] izŒ 14 vkosnu miHkksDrk eap dh izekf.kr izfrfyfidk izŒ 15 gSA** 19. It has also been specifically observed by the learned trial court in its judgment in para No. 16 that:- ^^i=koyh ij uxjikfydk ds }kjk fookfnr Hkw[k.M+ ds lEcU/k esa ekSds dh fjiksVZ Hksts tkus gsrq U;k;ky; us funsZf'kr fd;k Fkk mDr fjiksVZ Hkh miyC/k gS ftlds vuqlkj dkuey tSu dks o"kZ 1976 esa 45 xq.kk 7 QhV Hkwfe dk vkoaVu fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj ftl LFkku ij V~;wcosy yxk gS og Hkw[k.M+ izkFkhZ ds dCts dk gksuk crk;k gS vkSj orZeku esa V~;wcosy pkyw gkyr esa gksuk crk;k gSA** 20. Apart from this, the respondent-plaintiff succeeded to prove his case by his oral as well as documentary evidence that the suit property has been allotted to him by Nagar Palika, Chittorgarh in the year 1979 and he is in possession over the suit property from its allotment. The appellant-department has failed to produce any evidence in the trial which shows that who officer of the Nagar Palika, Chittorgarh came at the spot and gave permission for installation of tube well on the said place and in what capacity the officer of Nagar Palika had permitted to install the tube well in the suit property. Even DW-1 Piyush and DW-2 Narayan Singh in their examination in chief have whispered a single word that on which day who officer of Nagar Palika in what capacity came at the disputed land and gave permission for setting up the tube well. Even in examination in chief, both the witnesses DW-1 Piyush and DW-2 Narayan Singh had said that the said tube-well was installed without permission of the respondent-plaintiff. 21. When the plaintiff has come with these averments that the appellant-department set up tube well and constructed room with his permission then it was the duty of the appellant-department to rebut these averments, but upon perusal of cross-examination of both the witnesses DW-1 and DW-2, it is also proved that in 1983 when tube well was installed and room was constructed, both the witnesses were posted in P.H.E.D., Chittorgarh. Therefore, appellant-department failed to rebut these facts that set up of tube well and construction of room was made with permission of the plaintiff in his plot. 22. Upon perusal of notice Ex.6 which was given on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff to the appellant-department, respondent-plaintiff revoked the permission which was given by him to the appellant department but the appellant-department did vacate the suit property. 23. 22. Upon perusal of notice Ex.6 which was given on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff to the appellant-department, respondent-plaintiff revoked the permission which was given by him to the appellant department but the appellant-department did vacate the suit property. 23. In these circumstances, the respondent-plaintiff succeeded to prove in the trial court on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence that the suit property is in his possession and he is owner of the said property and he had given permission to the appellant department for installation of tube well for the purpose of water supply in nearby locality and when he felt bona fide necessity for construction over the suit land, he revoked his permission and ask to vacate the possession from his place. 24. There is no provision in any law under which one who gives permission cannot revoke the same. In my considered view, the respondent-plaintiff is owner of the suit property and he is in possession of the same and tube-well was installed with his permission in public interest, thus, he has right to revoke the permission when he felt bona fide necessity. 25. The appellant-department failed to produce any evidence which shows that the respondent-plaintiff had given any permission to set up tube well and construct room in the said plot. Even DW-1 and DW-2 have stated in their examination-in-chief that P.H.E.D. has taken any permission from the plaintiff for setting up of tube well and construction of room in the said plot. Appellant-department has also failed to produce any evidence which shows that on which day and in which capacity any officer of the Municipal Board came at the spot and permitted to set up tube well and construct a room. In spite of it the respondent-plaintiff has succeeded to prove that he purchased the said plot from the Municipal Board, Chittorgarh and he is in possession of the said plot and he also proved that he obtained construction permission from the Municipal Board. 26. The respondent-plaintiff also proved that he gave the permission to the appellant-defendants to set up the tube well and construct room in his plot in public interest. He also proved that when he felt bona fide necessity to construct room for need of his family member, he revoked the permission. 26. The respondent-plaintiff also proved that he gave the permission to the appellant-defendants to set up the tube well and construct room in his plot in public interest. He also proved that when he felt bona fide necessity to construct room for need of his family member, he revoked the permission. In these circumstances, learned first appellate court has committed any error in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and in decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff. 27. In my considered view, the learned first appellate court has neither misread any evidence available on record nor overlooked any material available on record and has given sound reasoning about his finding and also discussed relevant law. 28. In view of above discussions, the finding given by the first appellate court is based on material available on record and learned first appellate court has rightly set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.5.2010 passed by the learned trial court, therefore, all the substantial questions of law framed by this Court while admitting this appeal on 27.4.2011 are liable to be decided against the appellant and, therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 29. In view of above discussions, no case is made out for interference by this Court in the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court in this second appeal, hence, the same fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.