KAMAKSHYA NARAINSINGH Vs. KARANPURA DEVELOPMENT CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of two suits decided by one judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh, dated 30th April 1943. They raise identical questions regarding the validity of transactions entered into by the Court of Wards on behalf of Raja Kamakshya Narain Singh Bahadur of Ramgarh (who will hereafter be called the appellant Raja) with Meagre. Bird & Co. On behalf of the Karanpura Development Company Limited (who will hereafter be called the respondent Company) evidenced by a prospecting license in reaped of extensive coal lands lying within the estate of the appellant Raja accompanied by an agreement to lease, dated 26th March 1915, and two subsequent deeds, dated 23rd November 1917, and 1st June 1937, and number of leases granted to the respondent company, in pursuance of the prospecting license as varied by the deeds of variation, just mentioned.

(2.) First Appeal No. 125 of 1943 arises out of suit No. 82 of 1910 by the appellant Raja against the respondent Company foe a declaration that the transactions evidenced by the deeds, just mentioned, were void and inoperative in law, and for possession of the lands covered by them, as also for mesne profits to the tune of about two crores of rupees as being the price of coal extracted by the lessees of the respondent Company during the period that they have been in possession of the lands under the leases granted in pursuance of the impugned prospecting license.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge held that the deed of prospecting license with the agreement to lease and the deed of variation dated 23rd November 1917, were valid transactions binding on the appellant Raja. He, however, held that the deed of variation dated 1st June 1937, was void and inoperative in law. He accordingly dismissed the suit except with regard to the deed of variation of 1937. The Raja therefore has appealed to this Court against the part of the decree dismissing his suit and the Company has filed a cross-objection to the part of the decree holding that the deed of variation of 1937 was void and inoperative.