Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Raja Sri Sri Durga Prasad Singh vs Braja Nath Bose on 21 February, 1912
In the next case before the Judicial Committee -- 'Durga Prasad Singh v. Braja Nath, Bose', 39 Ind App 133 (PC) (C) the Zemindar of a permanently settled estate was declared to be entitled to the minerals underlying the Mouzas within its ambit against the defendant who was in possession as a Digwari tenure holder. No attempt had been made in that case to prove that the mineral rights in dispute had been specifically vested in the Digwar before or at the time of the Permanent Settlement if the lands were then held on a Digwari tenure which seemed more than doubtful. Nor was there any evidence tending to show or to suggest that the Zemindar ever parted with his mineral rights to the Dig-wars. Following the reasons given by the Board in -- '37 Ind App 136 (PC) (B) it was repeated that in the absence of definite proof that the Zemindari had parted with the mineral rights it must be presumed that such rights continued to remain in the Zemindar. An objection had been raised in this case that the Government ought to have been made a party to the suit and that in the absence of Government the suit was defective. This objection was however overruled by the Judicial Committee with the observation that "the Government is not a necessary or proper party to the suit. Apparently the Government does not claim the minerals under permanent settled estates. However that may be, the Government has never claimed the minerals under the two Mouzas or either of them, or put forward any claim inconsistent with the rights now asserted by the Zemindar. The rights of the Government whatever they may be, will not be prejudiced or affected by the result of a suit to which it is not a party."
Sashi Bhushan Misra vs Raja Jyoti Prashad Singh Deo on 8 December, 1916
In -- 'Shashi Bhusan Misra v. Jyoti Pra-sad Singh Deo AIR 1916 PC 191 (D) the Pachet Zemindar claimed rights to the minerals in a village held under talabi brahmattar rights from a date before the Permanent Settlement. On a consideration of the provisions of the Regulations Buckmaster L. C., came to the conclusion that
"By the Permanent Settlement of 1793 all the mineral rights were confirmed to the zemindars, and the first respondent to this appeal represents their interest in the estate. If such rights were already possessed and recognised at the date of the settlement this confirmation would hardly have been needed and this suggests that up to that date the rights enjoyed and granted in the lands were not considered as including the minerals; if this were so, as the grant in question could have created no rights in the property which the grantor did
not possess, no right to the minerals could have been confirmed".
Ranjit Singh vs Kalidasi Debi on 25 November, 1909
In the words of the Judicial Committee in --'Ranjit Singh v. Sm. Kalidasi Debi', AIR 1917 PC 8 at p. 10 (G) :
Lewis Pugh Evans Pugh vs Ashutosh Sen on 14 December, 1928
39. The cause of action for the damages done in all the cases took place except in the case of the southern block long before three years before the suit was filed in July 1943. The plaintiff claims the right to sue for damages for conversion of coal extracted from coal field -- 'Lewis Pugh v. Ashutosh Sen AIR 1929 PC 69 (H) and -- 'Adjai Coal Co. Ltd. v. Pannalal and the suit for damages or conversion of such specific moveable property is governed by Article 48, Limitation Act irrespective of the consideration whether such conversion was dishonest or acci-dental.
The Limitation Act, 1963
1