I had decided to lease the Murli Hill to the defendant No.
It held that the letter of the Lime Co. dated the 25th January, 1934, Exhibit A and the Board of Revenues approval companytained in Exhibit 3z 26 did companystitute an agreement for lease between the plaintiff and the Government according to the terms and companyditions in Chapter V of the Bihar and Orissa Waste Lands and Mineral Concession Manual, 1926.
It also found that the parties had agreed as to the distribution of the minimum royalty between the leases for the two portions of the Murli Hills as companytained in the letter dated the 19th January, 1935, of the Board of Revenue Exhibit A12 , namely that the royalty for the upper portion of the Hill was to be Rs.
The Lime Co. obtained possession on the 15th of April, 1934, but the leases were to take effect from the 1st April, 1934.
The telegrams were sent but the documents were never produced.
The suit was dismissed by the trial companyrt but was decreed by the High Court of Patna on the 7th February, 1936.
It also found that the defendant No.
The Kuchwar Co., however, started proceedings for companytempt against the manager and the managing director of the Lime Co. and the Secretary of State for India, and upon their being found guilty of companytempt the Lime Co. vacated the quarries in April, 1936.
Another application was made by the Lime Co. on the 14th November, 1950, drawing the attention of the companyrt that the papers had number been produced and praying that the defendant No.
1 forfeited the lease in favour of Kuchwar Co. by an order dated the 27th March, 1934, and re entered into possession.
entered into possession and although the Lime Co. repeatedly asked the defendant No 1 to executs the leases agreed upon between the parties and get them registered, they refused to do so and on the 2nd June, 1949, informed the Lime Co. that the defendant No.
The right of the Lime Co. to obtain specific performance on the basis of the draft leases relied on by the Lime Co. was denied and it was stated that the Lime Co. was number entitled to claim any equity against defendant No.
Appeals from the Judgment and Decree dated the 27th day of March, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna Reuben and Das JJ.
The trial companyrt further found that the parties to the agreement intended that the lease was to companymence from the date of its execution and that it was to be for, a period of 20 years.
They also denied the companytract and even alleged that the Lime Co. was never inducted into possession by the Government.
99 and 197 of 1951 arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated the 7th day of February.,
The Lime Co. number being impleaded as a party to the suit, filed by Kuchwar Co., companytinued to remain in possession.
Lal Narain, Government Advocate Ugra Singh, with him for respondent No.
The Lime Co. started quarrying operations on the 15th May, 1934.
35,000 by an unregistered deed dated the 30th September, 1933.
The two main issues relating to the existence of the companytract are issues 3 and 4 which are as follows Was there any legal, valid and binding companytract between the plaintiff and defendant No.
The defendant No.
The assignee took possession of the property, on the 9th October, 1933, but was stopped from working the quarries under orders of the Government from the 8th December, 1933, as the Government companysidered the assignment to the a breach of the companytract in the lease which made the lessees interest liable to forfeiture.
I and 2 for the period companymencing from the 1st April, 1948, till the Lime Co. gets possession of the lease hold properties, was decreed, the amount of companypensation to be determined in subsequent proceedings between the parties.
Both the issues were found in favour of the, Lime Co. The trial companyrt rejected the plea of the defendant No.
Kalyanpur Lime Works Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Lime Co., instituted a suit for specific performance of the companytract made by it with the State of Bihar, hereinafter referred to as defendant No.
The alleged that the order of the Government sanctioning the forfeiture of the leases in favour of the Kuchwar Co. and offering to, lease the quarries to the Lime Co. was based on misapprehension of the actual facts and had numberbinding effect.
The Kuchwar Co., which had been reinstated into possession, surrendered it when the lease, in its favour expired on the 31st March, 1948.
by a judgment and decree dated the 27th March, 1952.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, and Mahabir Prasad Avadh Behari Saran, R. J. Bahadur and B. K. Saran, with them for the appellant.
This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court at Patna dated March 27, 1952, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by reversing, the judgment and decree dated February 7, 1951, of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Sasaram, District Shahabad, who had decreed the suit.
I resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that numbercontract was entered into, that while the terms of the proposed leases were in the stage of negotiations, the proposal fell through and that there was numberconcluded companytract The pleas of limitation, estoppel, acquiescence and waiver were also raised.
1951, of the Court of the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge at Sasaram in Title Suit No.
The case put forward by the Lime Co. was that both the Lime Co. and defendant No.
of the Murli Hill to the Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co. Ltd., hereinafter called the Kuchwar Co., for, 20 years for the purpose of quarrying limestone therein, on the basis of two indentures of leases in respect of the two portions of the Murli Hill.
Thereafter the defendant No.
Was the agreement between the plaintiff and the Government defective for lack of settlement of any essential term as alleged by the defendants, and was it bad for uncertainty or vagueness ?
We, accordingly treat them as one appeal.
I proceeded on the assumption that the latter was fully companypetent to lease the Murli Hill to the former.
The leases companytained a prohibition against assignment of the companypanys leasehold rights without, the permission of the Government.
2 who were subsequent lessees of the Murli Hills for valuable companysideration.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
1s pleader to produce them on the date fixed.
It appears from the proceedings of the Lime Co. that on the 4th January, 1934, the managing director and the manager of the, Lime Co. were authorized to take all steps to apply for and secure the lease of the Murli Hill property and on the 25th January, 1934, the Lime Co. made an application Exhibit A to the Collector of Shahabad for getting the lease.
The order of the High Court in companytempt proceedings was ultimately set aside by the Privy Council on the 31st October, 1938, but the Lime Co. did number succeed in getting restitution.
189 and 190 of 1952.
Yet another attempt was made by the plaintiff on the 20th November, 1950, by filing an application that urgent telegrams be sent to the Collector, Shahabad, and other officers for producing these documents.
2, who was a lessee for one year with numberice of the Lime Co.s prior companytract, had numberlocus stand to companytest specific performance of that companytract.
December 14.
The facts leading up to the present appeal are these Defendant No.
7,500 and for the lower portion Rs.
I gave a lease.
In its application to the trial companyrt on the 19th, September, 1950, the Lime Co. did call for the leases from defendant No.
In January,1933 Kuchwar Co. went into voluntary liquidation and the liquidators of the companypany purported to assign the leasehold I interest of the companypany to one Subodh Gopal Bose.
The defendant No.
1 be reminded to produce them before the next hearing of the suit.
in Appeal from Original Decrees Nos.
I then re.
2 in a separate statement questioned the right of the Lime Co. to sue and denied its legal existence.
To this suit Dalmia Jain Co. Ltd. was im pleaded as defendant No.
1 offered to grant leases of Murli Hill to the Lime Co. for a period of 20 years on I the existing terms and companyditions as pet forth in, Chapter V of the Bibar Orissa Waste Lands Mineral Concession Manual.
C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate K. C. Jain and A. K. Dutt, with him for respondent No.
18/87 of 1950/49.
The companyrt on the same day made the order in terms of the plaintiffs prayer.
10,000 and on the 14th March, 1934, the Board of Revenue granted an interview to Mr. Banerjee, the representstive of the Lime Co., and recorded an order that the companymissioner may be told that the Board approves of the execution of the Iease but the letter should number issue until the Government order cancelling the, old lease, is received A. 5 .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GHULAM HASAN J. Two appeals have been filed by the plaintiff because of the existence of two decrees prepared by the High Court.
As a result of these findings the suit for specific performance and for companypensation against defendants Nos.
1 is admittedly the owner of what is called Murli Hills situate in the Sub Division of Sasaram in the District of Shahabad, the upper portion of which is known as the upper Murli Hill and the lower portion as the lower Murli Hill.
On the 1st April,, 1928, the defendant No.
The defendant No.
The appeals are in substance against the dismissal of the suit.
for Rs.
Both the defendants appealed and the appeals were disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court Reuben and Das JJ.
The trial companyrt took up the two issues together.
The defendant No.
The Lime Co. offered a minimum royalty of Rs.
The companyrt made an order on the same date, directing the defendant No.
2,500.
1, and can any such companytract be enforced ?
While the appeal was pending before the High Court, an ad interim injunction was issued on the 25th April, 1935, restraining the Secretary of State for India from granting leases to the Lime Co. The decision of the High Court was affirmed by the Privy Council on the 19th November, 1937.
It appears that on the 24th September, 1934, the Kuchwar Co. sued the Secretary of State for India for a declaration that the leases in their favour had number been validly forfeited and for an injunction restraining him from granting leases to any one else and for damages.
The trial companyrt framed as many as 13 issues in the case.
Accordingly the primary relief sought was for specific performance of the companytracts as also for possession and for companypensation.
This offer was made by a letter of the Board of Revenue dated the Slat March, 1934, Annexure B and was accepted by the Lime Co. in their letter dated the 15th April, 1934, companymunicated to the Collector of Shahabad Annexure C .
