Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1958 Supreme(SC) 19

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25th February 1958
N.H. BHAGWATI, J.L. KAPUR AND P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.
Kashi Bai, Petitioner
Versus
Sudha Rani Ghose and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 118-119 of 1956
continuous possession of the mining area and the mine would be a necessary ingredient to establish adverse possession
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, attorney-General for India, (Mr. Kshitindra Nath Bhattacharya and M/S. S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath, Advocates of M/S. Rajinder Narain and Co., with him), for Petitioner; Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (Messrs. S. C. Bannerjee, and P. R. Chatterjee, Advocates, with him) (for Nos. 7 to 13), Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, Advocates (for Nos. 2-4 and 6) (minors) and Mr. Gauri Dayal, Advocate (for No. 5), for Respondents.

Advocates:
GAURL DAYAL, J.B.DADACHAN, KSHITINDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA, M.C.SETALVAD, N.C.CHATTERJI, P.K.CHATTERJI, P.R.CHATTERJI, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.C.BANERJEE, S.N.ANDLEY

Intermittent working of a coal mining area is insufficient to establish adverse possession.

Headnote:
ADVERSE POSSESSION - COAL MINING AREA - INTERMITTENT WORKING - NO CONTINUOUS POSSESSION - NO ADVERSE POSSESSION.
Fact of the Case:

Appellant and respondent Manilal Becharlal Sangvi were defendants in a suit brought by respondents 1-3 for fixation of intermediate boundary, possession of trespassed area, compensation for illegally removed coal, and injunction. Appellant and respondent Manilal Becharlal Sangvi claimed adverse possession of the disputed area, which was part of a coal mining lease granted to respondents 1-3.
Finding of the Court:

The courts below found that the appellant and respondent Manilal Becharlal Sangvi had encroached upon the land in dispute, but that their working of the mine had not been continuous and had only been carried out for certain periods. The High Court also held that even if there was continuous possession and working of the mine, no title by adverse possession could be acquired to the whole of the mine.
Issues: Whether the appellant and respondent Manilal Becharlal Sangvi had acquired title to the disputed area by adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the intermittent working of the mine by the appellant and respondent Manilal Becharlal Sangvi was insufficient to establish adverse possession. The Court noted that there were long periods of time when no mining operations were carried out, and that the appellant and respondent Manilal Becharlal Sangvi had not proved any kind of possession during those periods. The Court also held that the working of a part of the mine (seam No. 9) would not give the trespasser the right to the entire mine, even if continuous possession was proved.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellant and respondent Manilal Becharlal Sangvi had not acquired title to the disputed area by adverse possession.

Judgment

J. L. KAPUR, J. : In these two appeals brought by leave of the Patna High Court against a judgment and two decrees of that Court a common and the sole question for decision is one of adverse possession. Two cross suits were brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad, raising common questions of fact and law. The appellant and respondent Manilal Becharlal Sangvi were defendants in one (Suit No. 16 of 1945). Respondents 1-3 were the plaintiffs in the former suit and defendants in the latter. The other respondents were defendants in the latter suit and were added as plaintiffs at the appellate stage under O. 1, R. 10, Code of Civil Procedure in the appeal taken against the decision in the former suit. Both the suits were decreed against the appellant and respondent Manilal Becharlal Sangvi who took two appeals to the High Court at Patna. Both these appeals were dismissed by one judgment dated 27th September, 1951, but two decrees were drawn up. Against this judgment and these decrees the appellant has brought two appeals to this Court which were consolidated and will be disposed of by this judgment.

2. The facts necessary for the decision of these two appeals are that on 26th November, 1894 Ganga Narayan Singh, a zamindar and proprietor of pargana Katras granted to Ram Dayal Mazumdar a lease of "the coal and coal mining rights" in two plots of land, one in mouza Katras and the other in mouza Bhupatdih. On 6th November, 1894 he granted a similar lease in plots contiguous to the plots in the lease mentioned above to Bhudar Nath Roy. In Suit No. 32 of 1896 boundaries between these two sets of plots were fixed and this was shown in a map which was incorporated in the decree passed in that suit. On the death of Ram Dayal, his sons Prafulla, Kumud, Sarat, Sirish and Girish inherited the leasehold rights which they on 19th October, 1918, granted by means of a registered patta and kabulliat to Lalit Mohan Bose for a term of 999 years. One Bennett who along with one Bellwood had obtained a coal mining lease from Raja Sakti Narayan Singh of Katrasgarh on 5th September, 1917, trespassed on the northern portion of the land within the area leased to Lalit Mohan Bose and sank two inclines and two airshafts and dug out coal from this area. This gave rise to a dispute between the parties which was amicably settled and the area trespassed was returned to the possession of Lalit Mohan Bose. This fact was denied by the appellant and Manilal Becharlan Sengvi respondent in their written statement and in their plaint. Lalit Mohan Bose died in 1933 leaving a will of which the executors were his widow, Radha Rani and his brother Nagendra Nath Bose. They leased out 17 bighas of land in possession of Lalit Mohan Bose to Keshabji Lalji in 1933. The remaining portion of the area leased to Lalit Mohan Bose was given on lease on 15th March, 1938 to Brojendra Nath Ghose and Vishwa Nath Prasad respondents and to Ram Chand Dubey but the possession thereof had been given to them in July 1937 and they (the above two respondents) and Ram Chandra Dubey carried on colliery business in the name and style of West Katras Colliery. On the death of Ram Chandra Dubey his estate was inherited by his sons and widow who on 25th June, 1944, sold their right, title and interest to Nagendra Nath Bose. These three, i. e. Brojendra Nath Ghose, Vishwa Nath Prasad and Nagendra Nath Bose were the plaintiffs in Suit No. 16 of 1945.

3. As stated above Raja Sakti Narayan Singh leased an area of 256 bighas to Bennett and Bellwood on 5th September, 1917, and they assigned their rights to the New Katras Coal Company Limited. This Company worked the coal mine for some time but went into liquidation and in Execution Case No. 293 of 1922 the right, title and interest of the company were sold and purchased by Nanji Khengarji father-in-law of Shrimati Kashi Bai appellant and by one Lira Raja. In August 1923 Nanji Khengarji and Lira Raja effected a partition, the western portio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document