Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from two cross suits concerning coal mining rights in pargana Katras, Bihar. The appellant Shrimati Kashi Bai and the respondents held adjoining coal mining leases derived from different zamindari grants made in 1894. In 1917, the predecessor in interest of the appellant, Bennett, trespassed into a northern portion of land leased to the respondents' predecessor, Lalit Mohan Bose, sank two inclines and two airshafts, and extracted coal. The area was subsequently returned by amicable settlement, but the appellant denied this. Over the following decades, mining operations in the disputed seam No. 9 were intermittent: work occurred in 1917-1918, 1923-1926, 1931-1933, briefly in 1939, and resumed in 1944. In 1945, the respondents Brojendra Nath Ghose, Vishwa Nath Prasad and Nagendra Nath Bose filed Suit No. 16 of 1945 for fixation of intermediate boundary, possession of the trespassed area, compensation for coal illegally removed, and injunction. The appellant and her partner Manilal Becharlal Sengvi filed a cross suit, Suit No. 50 of 1945, asserting title by adverse possession. The trial court decreed the respondents' suit and dismissed the appellant's suit. The Patna High Court dismissed appeals and confirmed the findings. Before the Supreme Court, the sole surviving issue was adverse possession. The appellant argued that intermittent mining operations over 12 years established continuous possession, while the respondents contended that no dispossession occurred and possession reverted to the true owner during stoppages. The Supreme Court held that continuous possession of the mining area and the mine was necessary; intermittent working with long stoppages did not amount to open, continuous, hostile possession. The court reasoned that during non-working periods, no kind of possession by the appellant was proved, and the presumption that possession reverted to the true owner stood unrebutted. It also noted that working a part of a seam would not give a trespasser right to the entire seam. The court distinguished Nageshwar Bux Roy v. Bengal Coal Co. and Secretary of State for India v. Debendra Lal Khan. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed and the decrees in favor of the respondents were affirmed, with compensation payable from December 1944 and amount to be determined by a Commissioner in subsequent proceedings.
Headnote
A) Adverse Possession - Coal Mine - Continuous Possession Requirement - Limitation Act, 1908 (not expressly cited) - The appellant claimed title by adverse possession over a coal mining area after intermittent mining operations from 1917 to 1944 with long stoppages between 1917-1923, 1923-1926, 1926-1931, 1931-1933, 1933-1939, and 1939-1944. The Supreme Court held that continuous possession of the mining area and the mine was a necessary ingredient; intermittent working with long stoppages did not constitute continuous possession. During non-working periods, no kind of possession was proved and possession reverted to the true owner. Held that no adverse possession was established and appeals were dismissed (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether intermittent mining operations over a coal mining area for a period of 12 years with long stoppages could constitute adverse possession
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed; decrees of Patna High Court confirming trial court's decrees in favor of respondents Nos. 1-3 were affirmed. The appellant's claim of adverse possession was rejected; the land in dispute was held part of area leased to respondents, encroachment proved, and respondents entitled to compensation as from December 1944 with amount to be determined by Commissioner in subsequent proceeding.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Adverse possession over a coal mine requires continuous possession of the mining area and the mine
- intermittent mining operations with long stoppages do not constitute adverse possession
- possession reverts to true owner during non-working periods
- working a part of a coal seam does not confer adverse possession over the entire seam
- presumption of reversion to true owner not rebutted
Case Details
Civil Appeals Nos. 118-119 of 1956
Kapur, J.L., Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Gajendragadkar, P.B.
Citation not available, 1958 AIR 434, 1958 SCR 1402
M. C. Setalvad, Kshitindra Nath Bhattacharya, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath, N. C. Chatterjee, S. C. Bannerjee, P. R. Chatterjee, P. K. Chatterjee, Gauri Dayal
Sudha Rani Ghose and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against Patna High Court judgment and decrees affirming trial court decisions in two cross suits over coal mining rights, boundary fixation, possession of trespassed area, and compensation for illegally removed coal; sole question was adverse possession.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought reversal of decrees granting possession and compensation to respondents and a declaration of title by adverse possession over disputed coal mining area.
Filing Reason
Dispute arose from alleged trespass by appellant's predecessors in interest into coal mining area leased to respondents, sinking of inclines and airshafts, and intermittent extraction of coal without title.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed Suit No. 16 of 1945 in favor of respondents Nos. 1-3 and dismissed Suit No. 50 of 1945; Patna High Court dismissed appeals and confirmed findings; Supreme Court considered appeals after consolidation.
Issues
Whether intermittent mining operations over a coal mining area for a period of 12 years with long stoppages could constitute adverse possession
Whether working a part of a coal seam could establish adverse possession to the entire seam
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant contended that carrying on mining operations even intermittently was sufficient to infer continuous possession of the area and mine, and since she had prescribed for the requisite 12 years, possession matured into ownership by adverse possession; for coal mine adverse possession it was not necessary to work continuously for 12 years.
Respondents argued that no dispossession occurred and no adverse possession established because working was not continuous and possession reverted to true owner during stoppages; trespasser's intermittent working could not give title to entire seam.
Ratio Decidendi
For establishing adverse possession over a coal mine, continuous possession of the mining area and the mine is necessary; intermittent working with long stoppages does not amount to continuous possession; during periods without mining operations possession reverts to true owner absent rebuttal; working a part of a seam does not confer adverse possession over entire seam even if continuous possession proved.
Judgment Excerpts
the intermittent working of the mine in the manner and for the period carried out by the appellants or their predecessors in interest was wholly insufficient to establish possession which could constitute adverse possession.
During the period when there were no mining operations no kind of possession of the appellants was proved and the presumption that during such periods possession reverted to the true owner was not rebutted.
the operations carried on by the appellant were inconsistent with the continuous, open and hostile possession or with the assertion of hostile title for the prescribed period of 12 years necessary to constitute adverse possession.
Procedural History
In 1945, two cross suits (Suit No. 16 of 1945 and Suit No. 50 of 1945) were filed in Court of Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad. Suit No. 16 of 1945 was filed by Brojendra Nath Ghose, Vishwa Nath Prasad and Nagendra Nath Bose against Shrimati Kashi Bai and Manilal Becharlal Sengvi for boundary fixation, possession, compensation, injunction. Suit No. 50 of 1945 was filed by Shrimati Kashi Bai and Manilal Becharlal Sengvi against the three plaintiffs of suit 16 and others. Both suits were tried together. On May 11, 1948, Subordinate Judge decreed Suit No. 16 and dismissed Suit No. 50. Appeals Nos. 252 and 254 of 1948 were filed in Patna High Court; High Court dismissed both by judgment dated September 27, 1951. Appellant obtained leave and filed Civil Appeals Nos. 118-119 of 1956 in Supreme Court; appeals consolidated and dismissed on February 25, 1958.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 1 Rule 10
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 107
