JYOTI PRASAD SINGH Vs. LACHIPUR COAL CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case for the plaintiff was that the village in suit was a mal village of his zemindari which was held by defendants 5 to 35 as ordinary tenants. They leased it to the defendants 2 to 4, who again leased it to the defendant 1, the Lachipur Coal Company. It was contended that the mineral rights did not belong to the tenants but remained in the plaintiff, and therefore this suit was brought, in which the relief claimed was, generally, that the plaintiff s rights to the minerals, etc., should be declared and that the defendants should be prevented from exercising any such rights. The defence is briefly that the village is a mogoli brahmottar village given to the predecessors of the defendants long before the permanent settlement and that the mineral rights belonged to the brahmottardars. The suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge and the plaintiff appeals.

(2.) The two principal points for decision are, first, whether the brahmottardars are at least permanent tenure-holders and, secondly, whether, if, so, the, mineral rights belong to them or to the Raja of Pachete, the plaintiff in the case.

(3.) The learned vakil for the, appellant lays great stress on the evidence, that the rent has varied, it cannot be disputed that the land was granted to the Brahmins before the permanent settlement, it seems to us to be of little importance whether there were originally three grants or one. I there was originally one grant, it was certainly divided into three before the memory of any of the witnesses. But this would not in any way affect the permanent character of the tenancies. The case of Udoy Chandra Karji v. Nripendra Narayan Bhup (1909) I.L.R. 36 Calc. 287, to which reference has been made, proceeded on the special wording of Section 50 of the Tenancy Act and can have no application to a tenancy which had been divided long before that enactment. Nor is this a case to which Section 50 can have any application. Nor do we think the fact that the Brahmins pleaded in certain rent suits that the rent had been split up, of any importance. The .vital point for decision is whether a permanent tenure was given to the Brahmins and it makes little or no difference whether the whole village was originally given by one grant or lease, or by three.