Back
1933 Supreme(SC) 70
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD MACMILLAN, SIR JOHN WALLIS, AND SIR GEORGE LOWNDES.
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL - Appellant
Versus
FOUCAR AND COMPANY, LIMITED - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Rangoon.
Decided On : Dec. 7. 1933.
Solicitor for appellant:Solicitor; India Office. Solicitors for respondents: Stoneham & Sons.
The doctrine of gradual accretion applies where no specific statutory law exists, based on justice, equity, and good conscience. Such rights are inherent in land grants and are not excluded by the existence of identifiable boundaries or maps if the accretion is gradual and imperceptible.
Headnote:(A) Land and Revenue Act - Section 6 - Laws Act - Section 13(3) - Doctrine of gradual accretion - Land added to foreshore by natural causes - Right of the adjoining owner.
(B) Application of common law principles under the standard of "justice, equity and good conscience" in the absence of specific statutory provisions.
(C) Bounding grants - The existence of maps, boundary posts, or other identifiable marks does not exclude the doctrine of accretion if the addition of land is gradual and imperceptible.
Facts of the case:
The respondents acquired plots of land on a tidal island in a navigable river. The land was originally granted by the government. Following the grants, some land reformed after erosion and other land was added by gradual accretion. The respondents claimed title to these additions, which were contested by the government.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the respondents were entitled to both the reformed land and the land added by accretion.
Issues: Whether the doctrine of gradual accretion applies in the jurisdiction and whether the existence of specific boundaries in the grants excluded the right to such accretions.
Ratio Decidendi: The doctrine of accretion is a rule of general convenience and security. In the absence of specific statutory prohibition, it applies under the principle of justice, equity, and good conscience. Such rights are inherent in grants of land bounded by a river and are not excluded by the existence of boundary marks or plans, as the law deems imperceptible additions to be part of the original grant.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land law
- accretion and alluvion
-
land law
-
administrative law
- government grants
-
practice and procedure
- jurisdiction
Judgement
Appeal (No. 60 of 1932) from a decree of the High Court (March 30, 1931) reversing a decree of the District Judge of Insein (March 31, 1928).
81 Law. Rep. 61 Ind. App. 18 ( 1933- 1934) Secretary of State v. Foucar and C ompany, Limited
182
The plaintiffs-respondents purchased in 1922 plots of land on the foreshore of an island formed by alluvial action in the river Pegu where it was tidal and navigable. The vendors of the plots were holders of Government grants made to them under the BURMA LAND AND REVENUE ACT , 1876. At the date of the purchase most of the island was submerged at high water ; the plots together comprised the whole island.
The respondents instituted a suit against the appellant and others claiming declarations that they were entitled to land which they alleged had reformed after erosion on the site of the plots granted, also to land added to the foreshore by gradual accretion. The land reformed or added was stated to be about 50 acres in extent.
The trial judge dismissed the suit. An appeal to the High Court was allowed, it being held (1.) that the Civil Court had jurisdiction, (2.) that the plaintiffs were entitled to the reformed lands claimed, and (3.)—after a reference to a third judge under clause 34 of the Letters Patent—that the plaintiffs were entitled to the land added by accretion. The judgments in the High Court are reported at I. L. R. 10 Ran. 1, and their effect is stated shortly in the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
Upon the argument of the present appeal the appellant disputed only the decision with regard to the accretions.
The terms of the grants, and the other material facts of the case, appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
1933. Oct. 10, 12, 13, 15, 17. Dunne K.C. and W attach for the appellant. All rights to land in Burma must be founded on grant from the Crown. The Lower BURMA LAND AND REVENUE ACT , 1876, by s. 6, restricts rights against the Government to rights created by the grant, and by rule 40, made under s. 18, an applicant for a grant must on his application demark the land applied for. The respondents rights are therefore restricted to the plots shown by lines drawn upon the plans attached to the grants, and these boundaries exclude the rule of accretion even if that rule applies in Burma. There is no authority, statutory or judicial, that the general principles of accretion forms part of the law of Burma. The Bengal Alluvion Regulation, 1824, enacts a rule of accretion, but it differs from that applied in England, and is based upon custom and usage in that province. In Madras a rule of accretion has been applied but on the view that the custom and usage was the same as in Bengal. In Bombay the rule in a restricted form exists by statute. There was no evidence as to any custom or usage in Burma. The policy there has been to grant chars arising in rivers to the villagers. If any principle of accretion is applicable in Burma, it was excluded in the present case by the terms of the grants, the stated purpose for which they were made, and the circumstances of the case. Gavin Simonds K.C., T. F. R. McDonell and Hubert Hull for the respondents. It was admitted that the grantees took a heritable title that was equivalent to a freehold interest which would attract the principle of accretion if applicable in Burma. That principle is found in almost all civilized countries, and is based upon convenience. In England it applies to additions to the foreshore, whether of the sea or a river, and whether or not the owner of the foreshore owns the land behind it ; moreover it applies against the Crown. The principle has been applied in Madras as " part of the law of all civilized countries " Secretary of State for India v. Rajah of Vizi-anagram (( 1916) I. L. R. 40 M. 1083, 1099.), the judgment being affirmed by the Privy Council. (( 1921) L R. 49 I. A, 67.) That case like the present related to land (lankas) which were almost entirely submerged by the tide. The prin
