The case of this defendant was that the four annas interest in village Dumri was a ghatwali tenure grant ed to the ancestors of the defendants first party by Muham madan rulers to guard the hill passes in the taluka, and the grant under which they held was affirmed subsequently by Captain Browne, a representative of the East India Company.
1, father of the appellant.
1 to 11 defendants 1st party , but, as the trial judge has pointed out, the real defendant was defendant No.
In execution of a mortgage decree obtained by one Chethru Rai against the ancestors of defendants 1st party, their interest, to which reference has been made, was purchased by the Maharaja of Gidhaur in the name of one of his employees, and the latter took delivery of possession of the property on the 19th April, 1904.
This document was companystrued by a Bench of the Patna High Court in Fulbati Kumari v. Maheshwari Prasad 1 , and, as has been pointed out by Dawson Miller J. in that case, It is number a grant of land but an authority to the persons named to companylect as formerly ghatwari of A.I.R. 1923 Patna 453.
He also prayed for mesne profits and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants first and second parties from extracting mica or other underground minerals from the lands mentioned in schedule II of the plaint.
Lastly, it was companytended that this defendant and his ances tors had been exercising rights of possession over the mines and minerals for more than 12 years prior to the suit in assertion of their ghatwali right and to the knowledge of The plaintiff and his ancestors and had thus acquired an indefeasible right by adverse possession to the mines and minerals in suit, especially those in the lands specified in schedule II of the plaint.
In this suit, after reciting the facts to which reference has been made he prayed for a declara tion of the subsoil rights with regard to the entire Mahal Dumri and for recovery of possession of the mortgage lands situated in the tolas specified in schedule 11 of the plaint.
The defendant No.
The plaintiff further submits that all the titles and interest in the said 4 annas mokrari shares of the ancestors of the defendant 1st party having been acquired by plaintiffs ancestor by auction purchase in 1903, the defendant 1st party have numbersort of right and interests in the mica and other under ground minerals number the defendant 2nd party have derived any lawful right under leases alleged to have been granted in their favour by defendant 1st party, the plaintiff in law is entitled to get a declaration of his title and possession with respect to all the underground right includ ing mica The suit was companytested by defendants Nos.
64 of 1942 arising out of decree dated the 28th February, 1942, of the Subordi nate Judge at Monghyr in Suit No.
The plaintiffs case is that, emboldened by the order in the proceedings under section 144, the defendants started working mines in the tolas mentioned in schedule II of the plaint and extracted a companysiderable quantity of mica and hence he was companypelled to institute the present suit.
Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated the 10th October, 1945, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna Manohar Lal and Das JJ.
After certain disputes in the criminal companyrts, the defendants second party alleging themselves to be the lessees of the defendants first party, obtained a mining license in 1937 from the sub divisional officer of Jamui, and the District Magistrate apprehending a breach of the peace, started proceedings under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which ended in favour of the defendants first and second parties and against the plaintiff.
The ancestors of the defendants 1st party originally held a 4 annas share in a ghatwali tenure known as Mahal Dumri Nisf Katauna T. No.
325, and subsequently by private partition they were allotted mouza Dumri with its 47 tolas which are detailed in schedule I of the plaint.
The grounds on which these reliefs were claimed are summarized in paragraph 12 of the plaint in these words That the plaintiff submits that he being the 16 annas proprietor of Dumri Nisf Katauna has got an indefeasible right and title to all the underground minerals including mica situate within the said talukas.
29 of 1950.
Amarendra Nath Sinha Samrendra Nath Mukherjee, with him for the appellants.
The plaintiff, the Maharaja of Gidhaur, who has succeed ed in both the companyrts below, is the proprietor of an impartable estate known as Gidhaur raj in the district of Monghyr.
10 of 1941.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Civil Appeal No.
May 2.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI J. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, affirming a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr in a title suit brought by the plaintiff respondent.
1 further companytended that the mineral and subsoil rights were vested in him as the holder of the ghatwali tenure, and that the plaintiff had acquired numberright by his auction purchase in 1903 inasmuch as the property in suit being Government ghatwali tenure was inali enable and companysequently the auction purchase was invalid.
This sanad was granted by Captain Browne, who was deput ed by the East India Company to restore order in a tract known as Jungle Terai, a vast waste and hilly companyntry as its name signifies, lying to the south of Bhagalpur and west of Rajamahal Hills.
in Appeal No.
Lal Narain Sinha R.C. Prasad, with him for the re spondent, 1951.
On the 13th August, 1903, the ancestors of the defendants 1st party filed an application for setting aside the sale which was dismissed by the executing companyrt and the appeal from the order of the executing companyrt was dismissed by the High Court as well as by the Privy Council.
