Kumar Hari Narain Singh Deo Bahadur vs Sriram Chakravarti on 7 May, 1910
8. He then proceeds to deal with the judgment of Mr. Justice Pargiter, who took the view that the creation of such a grant carried with it the mineral rights; and he expresses disagreement with this view of the law, stating that it appeared to ignore the distinction between the mere tenure-holder and the Zemmindar; the judgment concludes by saying that the Zemmindar must be presumed to be the owner of the ground rights in the absence of evidence that he ever parted with them. The counsel for the appellants has strongly urged that the whole of this judgment depends upon their Lordships' refusing to accept the view that the tenure in that case was permanent, transferable and heritable and that the judgment only applies to an estate lacking those qualities. Their Lordships realise that the judgment, in the absence of the argument, might be open to this construction; but, read in the light of the then appellant's contention, they think that the two passages referred to dealt with the two separate points which were raised by the appellants and that the latter part of the judgment was really independent of the statement which expressed dissatisfaction with the conclusion drawn as to the character of the tenure.