KARUNAMOY BANERJI Vs. PASHUPATI NATH MALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have come up in second appeal before this Court against the judgment and the decree of the Additional District Judge of Purulia upholding the judgment and the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises for specific performance of an agreement directing the defendants to execute a lease of coal mining rights described in the schedule attached to the plaint on terms and conditions specified in a draft lease. The case of the plaintiffs was that the estate of defendants 1 and 2, namely, Siarsol Raj Estate, was under the supervision of the Court of Wards. In 1943 defendant No. 1, Kumar Pashupatinath Malia, was working as an Honorary Manager of the estate under the Court of Wards. In February 1943 the plaintiffs addressed a letter to the Manager Court of Wards for Siarsol Raj Estate, proposing for grant of lease of 41 bighas of coal lands in Mauza Bhaljhuria. After some correspondence defendant No. 1, in his capacity as the Manager of the Estate under the Court of Wards, agreed to settle the lands to the plaintiffs. In accordance with the settlement, the plaintiffs sent a cheque for Rs. 1,025 in full payment of the salami for grant of the lease. A draft of the indenture of the proposed lease was prepared. The proposal for the settlement of the land in question was referred to for approval of the member of the Board of Revenue but as the estate was released on the 14th of August 1944, the Secretary, Board of Revenue, Bengal, wrote to the Commissioner of the Burdwan Division that as the estate had been ordered to be released with effect from the 14th of August 1944, sanction of the Board to the proposal was not necessary. The case of the plaintiffs further was that after the release of the estate in favour of defendants 1 and 2 the latter agreed, through their Manager in charge of the coal and minerals, who informed them through a letter, dated the 2nd of September 1944, that the draft lease which had already been approved could be engrossed on proper stamp paper and asked the plaintiffs to verify the draft lease once more. But in spite of this agreement, as the defendants refused to execute and register the lease, it became necessary for the plaintiffs to institute the present suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 2 who pleaded that there was no valid agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants which could be enforced in the present action. They further pleaded that they had not agreed to lease the properties in dispute to the plaintiffs nor had they authorised any of their manager to ratify or agree to any agreement to lease. They raised several other pleas which it is not necessary to mention here.