SAHEBZADA MOHAMMAD KAMGAR SHAH versus JAGDISH CHANDRA DEO DHABAL DEO AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 604 · Decided: 21-04-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1960 
April21. 
604 
f) 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960] 
SAHEBZADA MOHAMMAD KAM GAR SHAH 
v. 
JAGDISH CHANDRA DEO DHABAL DEO 
AND OTHERS. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and 
K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Document-Construction of-Discrepancy between earlier and 
later parts-"Duly authorised"~ 
meaning of-Indian 
Limitation 
Act, 1908 (IX of 1908), Explanation II, s. 19. 
In 1900 the then 
proprietor of the Dhalbhum 
estate who 
was the predecessor-in-interest of the first respondent granted a 
permanent lease of the 
mining rights for 
certain metals and 
minerals in the estate to one Prince Mohammad Bakhtyar Shah. 
During the lifetime of the said proprietor the management of 
the estate was taken over by the Deputy Commission of Singhbhum 
under the Chotanagpur 
Encumbered Estates Act and after the 
former's death the manager of the Estate granted to the Official 
Receiver to the estate of 
Prince 
Mohammad 
Bakhtyar 
Shah 
another lease in respect of mining rights in the same area in 1919. 
The first respondent 
commenced the present 
litigation for the 
purpose of 
recovering 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 appellant as 
the Receiver to that Estate. The decision of the case depended 
upon the construction of the two leases of 1900 and 1919 and 
the Trial Court aod the High Court decided the case in favour 
of the plaintiff respondents. 
On appeal by the contesting defen-
dant appellant on a certificate granted by the High Court: 
Held, 
that the 
intention of 
the parties 
to a 
dispositive 
document must be 
gathered from the words used by the parties 
themselves and they must be presumed to have used the words 
in their strict grammatical sense. 
If the st:itements made in the 
earlier part of the document were irreconcilable with those made 
in - the later part, 
the earlier part 
must prevail. 
In 
cases of 
ambiguity the court should look at all the parts of the document 
to ascertain the intention of the parties. 
If ambiguity still remains, 
the Court should 
interpret the document 
strictly against the 
grantor and ~n favour of the grantee. 
Under Exp. II of s. 19 of the 
Limitation Act 
the words 
"duly authorised" would include duly authorised either by the 
action of the 
party indebted or 
by force of law 
or order of 
the court. 
Annapagonda v. Sangadiappa, (1901) 
Born. L.R. 221 (F.B.), 
Rashbehari v. Anand Ram, 43 Cal. 211, Ramcharan Das v. Gaya 
Prasad, 30 All. 
422, Lakshmanan v. Sadayappa, A.LR. 1919 
Mad 816 and Thankamma v. Kunhamma, A.I.R. 1919 Mad. 370, 
approved. 
-
r-
( 
-
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
605 
Currimbhai v. Ahmedali, 58 
Born. 505 and 
Lakshmanan 
Chetty v. Sadayappa Chetty, 35 M.L.J. 571, considered. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
81 of 1956. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Sep-
tember 24, 1952, of the Patna High Court in First 
Appeal from Original Decree No. 2 of 1947, arising 
out of the judgment and decr'ee dated August 31, 1946, 
of the Special Subordinate Judge, Chaibassa, in Money 
Suit No. 3 of 1941. 
L. K. ]ha, B. K. Saran, S. T. Husain, S. K. ]ha 
and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant. 
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India 
]. C. Das Gupta and R. C. Prasad, for 
respondent 
No. I. 
1960. April 21. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
DAs GUPTA. T .- Dhalbhum estate which covers an 
area of more than 1,000 sq. miles and Iles partly in 
the District of Midnapur and partly in the District 
of Singhbhum is rich in minerals. 
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. 
Raja 
Sa"trughan 
Deo 
Dhabal Deo died in 1916. 
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. 
In the course of such management the 
Manager of the Estate granted on September 1, 1919, 
to the Official Receiver to the estate of Prince Moham-
mad Bakhtyar Shah another lease in respect of mining 
rights in the same area. 
The present litigation was 
comm~nced by the first respondent with ii view to re-
cover rents and royalties on the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.