SHREEMATI KASHI BAI versus SUDHA RANI GHOSE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1402 · Decided: 25-02-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1958 
Febr11ary 25• 
1402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
SHREEMATI KASH! BAI 
v. 
SUDHA RANI GROSE AND OTHERS 
[1958] 
(BHAGWA T, 
L. KAPUR and GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.) 
Adverse possession-Coal mine-Trespass and intermittent 
working-Whether can constitute adverse possession. 
The appellants and· the respondents were lessees of coal 
mining rights in adjoining areas. 
In 1917, the predecessors in 
interest of .the appellants trespassed into a portion of the lands 
leased to the predecessors in interest of the respondents, sank two 
inclines and two airshafts and dug out coal therefrom. 
There 
were no mining operations till 1923 when they were restarted and 
continued till 1926, and were re-commenced in 1931 and carried 
on till 1933. In 1939 the mine was worked for a short time. 
lu 
1944 the operations were recommenced by the appellants. In 1945 
the respondents brought a suit for fixation of the intermediate 
boundary, for possession of the area trespassed upon and for 
compensation for coal illegally removed by the appellants. The 
appellants contended, inter alia, that they had been in sole, ex, 
elusive, uninterrupted possession of the area in dispute openly to 
the knowledge of the respondents and had · acquired title by 
adverse possession: 
Held, that the intermittent working of the _mine in the manner 
and for the period carried out by the appellants or their prede-
cessors 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 appella.'lts was proved and the presumption that during such 
periods possession reverted to the true owner was not rebutted. 
Nageshwar Bux Roy v. Bengal Coal Co., [1930] L.R. 58 I.A. 
29 and Secretary of State for India v. Debendra Lal Khan, [1933] 
L.R. 61 I.A. 78, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals 
Nos. 
118-119 of 1956. 
Appeal from the judgment and decrees dated 
September 27, 1951, of the Patna High Court in 
Appeal from Original Decrees Nos. 252 and 254 of 
1948, arising out of the judgment and decrees dated 
May 11, 1948, of the Court of Subordinate Judge, 
Dhanbad in Title Suits Nos. 16 and 50 of 1945 respec-
tively. 
I 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1403 
1958 
. . M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, K.shi-
tindra Nath Bhattacharya, S. N. Andley, J.B. Dada-
chan.ifi and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant. 
Shreematl 
Kami Bal 
N. C. Chatterjee, S. C; Bannerjee and P. R. Chatterjee, 
v. 
for respondents ·Nos. 7 to 1.3. 
Sudha Rani Ghose 
and Others.· 
P. K. Chatterjee, for respondents Nos. 2-4 and 6 
(Minors). 
Gauri Dayal, for respondent No. 5. 
1958. February 25.' The following Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
KAPUR J.-In these two appeals brought by leave 
of the Patna High Court against a judgment and two 
decrees of that court a common and the sole question 
for decision is one of adverse possession. 
two cross 
suits were brought in the Court of the Subordinate 
Judge, Dhanbad, raising common questions of fact 
and law. The appellant and respondent 
Manilal 
Becharlal Sengvi were defendants in one (Suit No. 16 
of 1945) and plaintiffs in the other (Suit No. 50 of 
1945). Respondents Nos. 1-3 were the plaintiffs in 
the former suit and defendants in the latter. The 
other respondents were defendants in the latter suit 
and were added as plaintiffs i:tt the appellate stage 
under O. l,r.10, CodeofCivilProcedurein the appeal 
taken against the decision in the former suit. Both 
the suits were decreed against the appellant and res-
pondent Manilal. Becharlal Sengvi who took two 
appeals to the High Court at Patna. Both these ap-
peals were dismissed by one judgment dated Septem-
ber 27, 1951, but two decrees were drawn up. Against 
this judgment and these decrees the appellant ,has 
brought two appeals to this Court which were con-
solidated and will be disposed of by this judgment. 
The facts necessary for the decision of these two ap-
peals are that on November 26, 1894 Ganga Narayan 
Singh, a zamindar and proprietor of pargana Katras 
granted to Ram Dayal Mazumdar a lease of "the coal 
and coal mining rights" in two plots of land, one.in 
moua Katras and the other in mouza Bhupatdih. On 
November 6, 1894 he granted a similar lease in plots 
KapurJ. 
1404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958 
1958 
contiguous to the plots in the lease mentioned above 
to Bhudar Nath Roy. In Suit No. 32of1896 bounda-
s~,·~~;;. 
ri

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