STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RANI KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relevant facts in this first appeal filed by the State of Bihar can be compressed in a nut shell. It is not necessary to give all the facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal, as in it there is only one point involved for determination.

(2.) Rani Hingal Kumari was the proprietress of a Zamindari known as the Pandra Estate comprised in the Manbhum Collectorate. Before the year 1895 (perhaps in the year 1866, as it appears from another judgment of the High Court in a first appeal to which reference will be made later), a Patni lease was created by the said proprietress in favour of one Govind Prasad Pandit. The original document was filed in another suit and its certified copy was filed in this case which is Exhibit 1/a. A dispute arose between the Maliks of the Pandra Estate and the Patnidar as to whether under Exhibit 1/a the latter had derived a right to the under-ground minerals also situated in several villages in respect of which the Patni Taluk was created. One of the villages, which is the village in question, was Mauja Nirsa. At the end of the nineteenth century, a suit was filed by the Pandra Estate against the descendants of Govind Prasad Pandit, disputing the latter's right to under-ground minerals. The Patnidars claimed such rights. The trial court, as it appears, decided the suit in favour of the Pandra Estate and against the Patnidars. The latter filed First Appeal No. 129 of 1895 in the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal/The dispute was compromised in the High Court. The Court was not invited to express its opinion by a judgment as to whether the mineral rights were covered tinder Exhibit 1/a. The com-promise petition filed in the first appeal aforesaid in the Calcutta High Court is Exhibit 2. It recites :

(3.) Nothing is known in this suit as to what happened between the year 1898, when the compromise was entered into in the Calcutta High Court, and the year 1945. What we know is that in the year 1946 a lease was executed in favour of original defendant No. 1 Satkori Banerji, who had been inducted as a leasee to work the mines in the year 1945 by the descendants of Govind Prasad Pandit. The executants of the indenture of lease dated 14th May, 1946, which is Exhibit 1, were Kumar Pashupati Nath Maliah and his brother Kumar Kshitipati Nath Maliah. They were imp leaded as defendants 3 and 4 in the suit. Satkari Banerji entered into possession and worked the mines as a lessee. In or about the year 1953 the two Maliahs transferred their properties by execution of several deeds of trust of gift in favour of their wives, sons or other relations. The plaintiffs in the suit are the persons who claim an interest in the property and consequently in the lease by virtue of those deeds of transfer. One hundred bighas of coal lands were given in lease by Exhibit 1 in the year 1946. Earlier a suit was instituted for realisation of royalty, commission, etc., being title mortgage suit No. 14 of 1948, in respect of the period ending December, 1947. It was decreed against the lessees. The present suit was filed on the 2nd of January. 1960, against Satkori Banerji as the principal defendant No. 1 for realisation of royalty, commission, etc., for the period January, 1948, to November, 1959. In this suit was impleaded one of the persons holding eight annas right under the various deeds of transfer executed by defendants 3 and 4, as defendant No. 2. Subsequently, he was transposed to the category of the plaintiffs. Satkori Banerji died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs were substituted. There have been some more deaths on the either side and heirs have been substituted. It is not necessary to go into their details. Suffice it to say that the suit is by the persons who claim to hold title as patnidars against their lessees for realisation of the amounts of royalty and commission said to be due roughly for the period 1948 to 1959.