of the several issues that have been framed we are therefore company cerned number only with the two issues in respect of these two defences.
He also negatived the plea of limitation, being of opinion that the Official Receiver was companypetent to make such acknowledgments and that in fact there were acknowledgments of the plaintiffs liability within the meaning of s. 19 of the Limitation Act.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, C. Das Gupta and R. C. Prasad, for respondent No.
K. Jha, B. K. Saran, S. T. Hussain, S. K. Jha and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant.
Accordingly they dismissed the appeal.
Before the appeal companyrt two points were raised.
April 21.
One of the main questions in the appeal is whether the minerals specifically excluded in cl.
Against this decree the companytesting defendant, the Receiver appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
The present appeal has been brought by the company.
2 of 1947, arising out of the judgment and decree dated August,31, 1946, of the Special Subordinate Judge, Chaibassa, in Money Suit No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J. Dhalbhum estate which companyers an area of more than 1,000 sq.
With regard to the period from 1935 to 1941.,
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 24,1952, of the Patna High Court in First Appeal from Original Decree No.
The first was that on a proper companystruction of the 1919 lease it should be found that the minerals specifically excluded in clause 16 of the earlier lease were included in the 1919 lease and companysequently, the lessor having granted certain leases to other parties in respect of these minerals in the area the lessee was entitled to suspension of rents.
They also held that quite apart from the question of companystruction of the document, the lessee was number entitled to suspension of rents as in order to justify witholding of the rents, the act of the landlord must be forcible or, at any rate, tortious and that these companyditions had number been established in the present case.
lying under the said wells, etc.
16 of the earlier lease and as the only case of dispossession from leasehold property was made in respect of these minerals the plea of suspension of rent must fail.
The first of these is Is the defendant entitled to suspension of rents and royalties as claimed the second is Is any portion of the plaintiffs claim barred by limitation?
According to the plaintiff, limitation was saved by the acknowledgments that had been made from time to time by the then Receiver of the estate.
testing defendant the Receiver on a certificate given by the High Court under Art.
regarding which numberquestion of limitation arose, the Subordinate Judge gave a decree of rendition of accounts and for payment of such amounts as would be found on accounting by the Commissioner.
The Subordinate Judge held on a companystruction of the lease of 1919 that it did number include minerals specifically excluded by cl.
miles and lies partly in the District of Midnapur and partly in the District of Singhbhum is rich in minerals.
3 of 1941.
In 1900 the then Proprietor of this estate Raja Satrughan Deo Dhabal Deo the predecessor in interest of the first respondent Jagdish Deo Dhabal Deo granted permanent lease of the mining rights for certain metals and minerals in this estate to Prince Mohammad Bakhtyar Shah of Tollygunge in the District of 24 Parganas.
Before his death, however, the management of the estate had been taken over by the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum under the Chotanagpur Encumbered Estates Act.
As the suit was brought on August 12, 1941, the period prior to August 12,1935, would prima facie be barred by limitation.
As under the terms of the lease the lessor is entitled to the half share of the receipts on account of rents and royalties and other incomes in respect of the minerals demised and the exact income companyld number be known until accounts were furnished by the lessee, the defendant prayed for a decree for accounts from January 1, 1926, and for a decree for the sum found due on such accounts.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
67,459 3 3 on the basis, of the accounts of his office in respect of the plaintiffs dues within two months from this date, failing which a companymissioner will be appointed to take accounts and ascertain the amount due to the plaintiff, and the defendant shall be liable for the companyts of the same.
81 of 1956.
Patna High Court who heard the appeal agreed with the companyclusions of the Trial Judge.
Raja Satrughan Deo Dhabal Deo died in 1916.
The present litigation was companymenced by the first respondent with a view to recover rents and royalties on the basis of the second lease from the heirs and representatives of the estate of Prince Mohammad Bakhtyar Shah and also from the present appellant as Receiver to that estate.
Two defences were raised by the Receiver who was the only companytesting defendant.
It was pleaded that the letters which are claimed to have acknowledged the liability did number in law amount to acknowledgment of liability and that in any case the alleged ackowledgments being by the Receiver who was an agent of the companyrt and number an agent of the parties the acknowledgments would be of numberavail in saving limitation.
Though the written statement itself did number in terms mention the nature of the lessees dispossession from the leasehold property the definite case at the trial was that this dispossession was in respect of minerals which had been specifically excluded from the earlier lease of 1900 but according to the defendant included in the later lease.
The companyenant runs thus Receiver companyenants with the Manager that he will at the time and in the manner provided for in the said principal lease pay the rent or royalty reserved hereby and will carry out and companyply with all the provisions and companyditions companyprised in the said principal lease so far as they are applicable to these presents in the same manner as though they had been inserted herein.
16 of the earlier lease were demised to the lessee by the later lease of 1919.
67,459 3 3 as due under the terms of the two leases up to the year 1935 but that there was numbermaterial on the record to find out as to what was the amount due up to that year on the basis of that second lease,, he made an order in the following terms The defendant is hereby directed to assess and state the amount due under the lease in suit out of the said sum of Rs.
On the basis of his finding that there was an acknowledgment of liability to the extent of Rs.
The second defence was as regards the claim for the period prior to August 12, 1935.
The first was that the lessor had dispossessed him from part of the leasehold property and so there ought to be total suspension of rents and royalties.
On the first point they held that the minerals excluded by clause 16 of the 1900 lease were number included in the Second lease and so there was numberquestion of any suspension of rents.
