Gokul Prasad, J.:— This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of the site of a house built by the defendants. The defendants denied the plaintiff's title. The defendant No. 1 the owner of the house transferred it to the defendant No. 2. The first Court decreed the plaintiff's claim holding that the plaintiff was mutwalli of the land on which the house in dispute stood and that the defendant a mere licensee denied the plaintiff's title and was therefore liable to ejectment. The defendants went up in appeal and the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was the mutwalli and the defendant licensee had denied the plaintiff's title, but he held that such denial did not necessarily lead to a decree for dispossession of the defendant licensee. He however directed dispossession of the transferee, the defendant No. 2. The defendants come here in second appeal and their contention is that because of the building the license has become irrevocable and the transfer in favour of the defendant No. 2 was a perfectly valid transfer. Next it is contended that the decree maintaining the possession of defendant No. 1 and directing dispossession of defendant No. 2 the transferee was illegal. Now as to the first point the mere fact that the license had become irrevocable does not necessarily imply that the licensee acquired a right to transfer the license or the building. A license is ordinarily only a personal right and carries with it the incident of non transferability. Under these circumstances it is impossible to hold with the appellant transferee that the decree for his ejectment was a decree had in law. He did not and could not acquire any right by the transfer in his favour which was not warranted by law. The decree of the lower appellate Court was a correct decree so far as he was concerned and I dismiss this appeal with costs. It appears from an office report that a deficiency of Rs. 10 is due from the plaintiff, respondent for the first Court. The decree of this Court will not be prepared till the deficiency is made good by the plaintiff-respondent. He must do this within ten days from to-day, and if so deposited the office is to receive the deficiency. In case the deficiency is not made good the suit will stand dismissed in all Courts.
2. Upon the L.P.A being heard the following judgment was delivered:—
3. There is nothing in this appeal.
4. It was clearly rightly decided. We dismiss it with costs.
5. Appeal dismissed.