SATYA NIRANJAN CHAKRAVARTI Vs. RAM LAL KAVIRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present action is as to the right to the minerals in a mauza at Sultanpur. The plaintiffs are the zamindars of a zamindari within the bounds of which the said mauza lies. The defendants are the patnidars and darpat-nidars of the said mauza. The defendants are working, and, as the High Court have found--as to which finding no dispute has been raised before this Board--have worked the mines on a large scale since 1894 and to the knowledge of the plaintiffs since 1898.

(2.) THE present suit was raised in 1915. The defendants rely upon three separate defences. First, they say that being patnidars they are in right of all the zamindari rights appertaining to the territory embraced in the patni lease, unless exception has been expressed, and that no exception of minerals was expressed. Secondly, they say that the patni lease gives them the right to the minerals in express terms. Thirdly, they say that the suit is barred either under Article 120 or Article 144 of the first schedule to the Indian Limitation Act. The learned Subordinate Judge decided all three questions against the defendants and gave decree. On appeal the High Court of Patna affirmed the view of the Subordinate Judge on the first question, but reversed him on the second. It is somewhat difficult to say whether they affirmed or reversed on the third, but, as they were in favour of the defendants on the second, they dismissed the suit.

(3.) FURTHER , their Lordships agree with the High Court on the second question. This depends on the document of title. It runs as follows: