As the lease came into force on September 7, 1950 and money was paid on that date, the fact that there was an earlier unregistered companytract does number make any difference to the question at issue.
As the plaintiff did number get the possession of the leased property it instituted a suit for recovery of possession of the leased property along with mesne profits and in the alternative for refund of the sum of Rs.
Haricharan Singh J.D. Co. later changed its name to Kuju Collieries Ltd. who are the appellants.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment Decree dated the 19th October, 1965 of the Patna High Court in Original Decree No311 of 1960.
80,000/ and certain other sums.
The present appeal is, however, companycerned only with that amount.
80,000/ as payable to it by the 1st respondent.
1865 of 1967.
The appellant has, therefore, companyfined his claim to the sum of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It is necessary at this stage to mention that after the institution of the suit the Bihar Land Reforms Act came into force as a result of which any lessee working a mine became direct lessee under the State, and ,as the plaintiff was number working the mines any claim in respect of the possession of the mines became unenforceable.
The 1st respondent also companytended that the leased properties were handed over to the plaintiff, that they were number aware that respondents 3 and 4 were resisting the plaintiffs claim and that the 1st respondent was number in any case responsible therefor and that therefore the plaintiff was number entitled to any relief.
P. Malhotra and D. N. Mishra, for the appellant.
N. Mukherjee and N. R. Chaudhury, for respondent Nos.
P. Singh, S. C. Aggarwala, V. J. Francis and S. S. Bhatnagar,for the intervener.
In the suit the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent took the stand that the 1st respondent was number created by the 2nd respondent, that the lease was by the 1st respondent and the amount was paid to the 1st respondent alone and number to the 2nd respondent.
80,000/ was paid to the 1st respondent.
During the pendency of this appeal respondents 2 and 3 died and their legal representatives have number been brought on record.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J. This appeal is against the judgment of the Patna High Court by Special Leave granted by this Court.
N. Prasad, for respondent Nos.
In pursuance of the lease a sum of Rs.
1, 3, 5.
There was an earlier lease in respect of the same property in favour of respondents 3 and 4 which expired on 4 4 1950.
It arises out of a mining lease granted by the 1st respondent but alleged to have been ,done so in the name of the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent in favour of Haricharan Singh J.D. Co. on 7 9 1950.
The plaint allegation was that the 1st respondent was a Limited Company created by the 2nd respondent.
