SHAIKH MONGAL Vs. PURE DISHARGARH COLLIERY CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for recovery of damages and mesne profits for mischief and wrong done to his land by the defendants. The plaintiff's case in the plaint is that under defendant 3, Apear Collieries Limited, who are the taluqdars of mouza Sitarampur, the plaintiff is an occupancy raiyat in respect of 14 plots of land enumerated in the plaint. Defendant 3 gave a mining lease of the under-ground rights to defendant 2, New Birbhum Coal Company Limited and defendant 2 in its turn granted a sub-lease in favour of defendant 1 Pare Dishargarh Colliery Company. The plain-tiff's case is that the defendants for the purpose of carrying on their colliery work erected a bungalow on one of the plots, laid tram lines on other plots, for the purpose of carrying coal and made roads by throwing cinders. The plaintiff further alleges that the defendants carried on their mining operations in such a way as to cause subsidence of one of the plots. The plaintiff filled up the subsidence with earth but defendant 1 opened an airshaft on that plot by removing the earth. The plaintiff accordingly claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 600 for the purpose of reconditioning the land and making the land fit for cultivation, and also a sum Rs. 195 as mesne profits.

(2.) The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 2 inter alia on the allegation that the suit was barred by limitation, that the plaintiff had no title to the suit lands, and that the defendants did not encroach upon the plaintiff's land, nor rendered it unfit for cultivation, and that the defendants never agreed to pay any compensation to the plaintiff for any wrong, as alleged in the plaint.

(3.) The learned Munsif who tried the suit found that the plaintiff had title as an occupancy raiyat to all the plots of land enumerated in the plaint and that the acts alleged by the plaintiff were done by the defendants, but the trial Court dismissed the suit upon the finding that the acts complained of were committed beyond the period of limitation. The trial Court took the view that the Article of the Indian Limitation Act applicable to the facts of this case would be Article 36 under which the period of limitation was two years from the date when malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance took place.