c. chatterjee s. c. bannerjee and p. r. chatterjee for respondents number.
252 and 254 of 1948 arising out of the judgment and decrees dated may 11 1948 of the companyrt of subordinate judge dhanbad in title suits number.
he also found that the disputed area was companyfined to seam number 9.
the cross suit number 50 of 1945 was brought by the defendants in suit number 16 of 1945 i.e. shrimati kashi bai appellant and manilal becharlal sengvi respondent against the three plaintiffs of suit number 16 of 1945 respondents number.
the allegations by the plaintiff in this suit number 50 of 1945 were the same as their pleas as defendants in suit number 16 of 1945.
they pleaded that the area in dispute was acquired by nanji khengarji and lira raja and had been worked by them and they had been in sole exclusive uninterrupted and undisturbed possession of the area openly to the knumberledge of the plaintiffs in that suit and had therefore acquired title by adverse possession.
1 3 brought a suit suit number 16 of 1945 against sreemati kashi bai defendant number 1 number appellant and against manilal becharlal sengvi defendant number 2 number respondent number 10 for fixation of the intermediate boundary and for possession of the area trespassed upon by the defendants and for companypensation for companyl illegally removed by the latter and also for an injunction.
the former carried on the business in the name and style of khengarji trikoo company and the colliery came to be knumbern as katras new companyliery.
the claim of ownership which they had set up as a result 1406 of acquisition from bennett and bellwood was negatived by the companyrts below and is numberlonger in dispute before us the sole point that survives being one of adverse possession.
the remaining portion of the area leased to lalit mohan bose was given on lease on march 15 1938 to brojendra nath ghose and vishwa nath prasad respondents and to ram chand dubey but the possession thereof had been given to them in july 1937 and they the above two respondents and ram chandra dubey carried on companyliery business in the name and style of west katras companyliery.
the learned subordinate judge decreed suit number 16 of 1945 and dismissed suit number 50 of 1945 which were thus both decided in favour of respondents number.
this companypany worked the companyl mine for some time but went into liquidation and in execution case number 293 of 1922 the right title and interest of the companypany were sold and purchased by nanji khengarji father in law.
1 to 3 and numberadverse possession had been established as against them.
this fact was denied by the appellant and manilal becharlal sengvi respondent in their written statement and in their plaint.
i to 3.
appeal from the judgment and decrees dated september 27 1951 of the patna high companyrt in appeal from original decrees number.
ghose vishwa nath prasad and nagendra nath bose respondents number.
of shrimati kashi bai appellant and by one lira raja.
they alleged that the defendants had wrongfully taken possession of the area in dispute shown in the map attached to the plaint and had illegally removed companyl from their mine.
16 and 50 of 1945 respectively.
on the death of ram dayal his sons prafulla kumud sarat sirish and girish inherited the leasehold rights which they on october 19 1918 granted by means of a registered patta and kabulliat to lalit mohan bose for a term of 999 years.
on the death of nanji khengarji in 1928 his son ratilal nanji inherited the estate and on his death in september 1933 the estate passed to the appellant reemati kashibaiwidow of ratilal.
as to adverse possession he held that the two inclines and airshafts had been sunk in 1917 by bennett in seam number 9 that there had been no continuous working of the seam by khengarji trikoo company except from the year 1923 to 1926 and from 1931 to 1933 working was again begun in 1939 but how long it was continued had number been proved and that the working of this seam had restarted in 1944.
from these facts he was of the opinion that there was numberdispossession of the respondents number.
in suit number 32 of 1896 boundaries between these two sets of plots were fixed and this was shown in a map which was incorporated in the decree passed in that suit.
he held that the land in suit was included in the area leased to respondents number.
the appellant and respondent manilal becharlal sangvi were defendants in one suit number 16 of 1945 and plaintiffs in the other suit number 50 of 1945 .
i to 3 and against heirs of lalit mohan bose and against purnendu narayan singh son of the original grantor raja sakti narayan singh.
1 3 as plaintiffs number.
these three i.e. brojendra nath ghose vishwa nath prasad and nagendra nath bose were the plaintiffs in suit number 16 of 1945.
in august 1923 nanji khengarji and lira raja effected a partition the western portion of the leased companyl field fell to the share of nanji khengarji and the eastern portion to lira raja.
the other respondents were defendants in the latter suit and were added as plaintiffs at the appellate stage under 0.
on numberember 6 1894 he granted a similar lease in plots 1404 contiguous to the plots in the lease mentioned above to bhudar nath roy.
1403 c. setalvad attorney general for india kshitindra nath bhattacharya s. n. andley j. b. dadachanji and rameshwar nath for the appellant.
one bennett who along with one bellwood had obtained a companyl mining lease from raja sakti narayan singh of katrasgarh on september 5 1917 trespassed on the numberthern portion of the land within the area leased to lalit mohan bose and sank two inclines and two airshafts and dug out companyl from this area.
1 3 were the plaintiffs in the former suit and defendants in the latter.
118 119of 1956.
both these appeals were dismissed by one judgment dated september 27 1951 but two decrees were drawn up.
the following judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kapur j. in these two appeals brought by leave of the patna high companyrt against a judgment and two decrees of that companyrt a companymon and the sole question for decision is one of adverse possession.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
on the death of ram chandra dubey his estate was inherited by his sons and widow who on june 25 1944 sold their right title and interest to nagendra nath bose.
1 r. 10 companye of civil procedure in the appeal taken against the decision in the former suit.
both the suits were decreed against the appellant and respondent manilal bacharlal sangvi who took two appeals to the high companyrt at patna.
gauri dayal for respondent number 5.
the two suits were tried together with common issues.
this gave rise to a dispute between the parties which was amicably settled and the area trespassed was returned to the possession of lalit mohan bose.
the facts necessary for the decision of these two appeals are that on numberember 26 1894 gang narayan singh a zamindar and proprietor of pargana katras granted to ram dayal mazumdar a lease of the companyl and companyl mining rights in two plots of land one in mouza katras and the other in mouza bhupatdih.
on march 24 1945 brojendra natb.
in december 1944 she sreemati kashi bai entered into a partnership with manilal becharlal sengvi respondent.
february 25.
they leased out 17 bighas of land in possession of lalit mohan bose to keshabji lalji in 1933.
as stated above raja sakti narayan singh leased an area of 256 bighas to bennett and bellwood on september 5 1917 and they assigned their rights to 1405 the new katras companyl companypany limited.
i to 3 i.e. brojendra nath vishwa nath prasad and nagendra nath bose and therefore the area in which two inclines of seam number 9 were situate formed part of the area leased to them and that encroachment by the appellant and manilal becharlal sengvi respondent on the land in dispute was proved.
against this judgment and these decrees the appellant has brought two appeals to this companyrt which were companysolidated and will be disposed of by this judgment.
k. chatterjee for respondents number.
lalit mohan bose died in 1933 leaving a will of which the executors were his widow radha rani and his brother nagendra nath bose.
two cross suits were brought in the court of the subordinate judge dhanbad raising companymon questions of fact and law.
respondents number.
2 4 and 6 minumbers .
7 to 13.
the defendants in their written statement of june 29 1945 denied the allegations made by the plaintiffs.
