The holders of Lakheraj lands, even though they were resumed subsequently as invalid Lakherajes, were proprietors of the soil from before and continued to be such proprietors in the same right as the Zemindar were over Mal lands included under the Decennial Settlement. Settlement of revenue after resumption confirm the proprietary right of the quandum Lakherajdars over the resumed lakherajes and they become entitled to both the surface and the subsoil rights.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs respondents filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for damages for coal wrongfully taken away by the defendant company from underneath the lands belonging to the plaintiffs and for coal rendered unworkable and for other reliefs. The plaintiffs claim that they are the owners of certain plots which form Touzi No. 2597 of the Burdwan Collectorate. These plots are situate within Lot Sripur within which lands of different Touzis are included.

( 2 ) LANDS covering an area of 6000 bighas appertaining to touzi No. 12 of the Burdwan Collectorate and situate within Lot Sripur were taken in Patni right in 1907 by one Pran Krishna Chatterjee. In 1911 Pran Krishna gave a prospecting lease in favour of the Lodna Colliery Co. , Ltd. , the predecessors of the present defendant the Lodna Colliery Co. (1920) Ltd. Shortly thereafter Pran Krishna also obtained from the Zemindar, the Maharaja of Burdwan, rights to the minerals under the same property. Thus Frankrishna became the undisputed owner of the underground right in 6000 bighas in Lot Sripur appertaining to touzi No. 12. Pran Krishna subsequently leased out the underground rights to the defendant company an additional area of 541 bighas. Under subsequent transactions Pran Krishna sold his underground rights to the defendant company in respect of the entire 6541 bighas. The defendant company began working the mines in Lot Sripur.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs alleged that the different plots appertaining to touzi No. 2597 of which they were the owners had been trespassed upon by the defendant company without the knowledge of the plaintiffs by running the gallaries from the defendants' lands into those owned by the plaintiffs. It was in the month of Sraban 1348 B. S. , i. e. July-August 1941 that the plaintiffs came to know for the first time of such wrongful acts on the part of the defendants. Their attention was drawn by subsidences on the surface of their own land. Hence they claim damages for coal wrongfully taken away by the defendants from underneath the plaintiffs' plot and for having rendered unworkable a quantity of coal which had been left and for compensation under other heads. The suit was filed on the 22-7-1943 within three years of the alleged date of knowledge.

( 4 ) THE defendant company contested the plaintiffs' claim on various grounds. It is not necessary to refer in detail to all of them as only three points have been urged before us on behalf of the defendant company who are the appellants before us.

( 5 ) IT is contended that the plaintiffs must at the outset prove their title to the underground minerals. Lands claimed by the plaintiffs are situate within touzi No. 2597 which had been formed into a new touzi after an invalid Lakheraj had been resumed. The settlement of lands forming an invalid Lakheraj does not vest the settlement holders with the proprietary rights over the underground minerals as such lands were at the time of the decennial settlement excluded from settlement.

( 6 ) SECONDLY that even if the plaintiffs had any right to the underground minerals such right had been lost by adverse possession and the defendant company had obtained before the filing of the suit title to the properties in suit.

( 7 ) LASTLY it is contended that even if the plaintiffs prove their title to the minerals the present claim of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation as the extraction of coal alleged by the plaintiffs as the cause of action for the suit had been done long before three years before the filing of the suit. Further, one of the plaintiffs was serving under the defendant company in a responsible position, for underground work in the mines of Lot Sripur and otherwise also the plaintiffs were fully cognisant of the fact that the defendant company had been extending the mines beyond the limits of the company's property and that they had trespassed into underneath the plaintiff's property,

( 8 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge ha