9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Encroachment on plaintiffs' coal-land. 2. Correct delineation of the boundary line. 3. Suit barred by limitation. 4. Damages for coal removed and rendered unworkable. Detailed Analysis: 1. Encroachment on Plaintiffs' Coal-Land: The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had encroached upon their coal mines, removed coal, and rendered the remaining coal unworkable. The defendants denied the encroachment and claimed the suit was barred by limitation. The Subordinate Judge found that the defendant had indeed encroached upon the plaintiffs' coal-land, and this finding was upheld by the High Court. 2. Correct Delineation of the Boundary Line: The crux of the dispute was the correct delineation of the boundary line between the plaintiffs' and defendants' leaseholds. The plaintiffs' leasehold was to the south of the defendants' leasehold. The court examined various lease deeds, particularly the lease deed of August 2, 1894, and subsequent deeds. The boundary line was determined based on the plan annexed to the lease deed dated November 23, 1900 (Ex. 3(b)), which showed the boundary line between points A and B. The court held that the southern boundary of the appellant's holding, conterminous with the northern boundary of the respondents' holding, is the line between points A and B shown in Ex. 3(b). 3. Suit Barred by Limitation: The encroachment and removal of coal were alleged to have occurred around 1932, but the respondents claimed they only became aware of it in 1941 upon receiving a letter from the Inspector of Mines. The court applied Article 48 of the Limitation Act, which allows a suit to be filed within three years from when the plaintiff first learns of the defendant's possession of the property. The court found that the respondents had knowledge of the encroachment only in 1941, within three years of filing the suit. The burden of proof was initially on the respondents to prove their lack of knowledge, which they did, and the appellant failed to prove otherwise. 4. Damages for Coal Removed and Rendered Unworkable: The plaintiffs claimed that the coal left in the encroached area was unworkable due to statutory obligations under the Indian Mines Act and associated regulations, which required a 25-feet barrier to be maintained. The defendants did not deny this statutory obligation. The court accepted the plaintiffs' claim that the remaining coal was entirely lost to them and rendered unworkable. The possibility of obtaining an exemption from the rule was not raised in lower courts and was not considered by the Supreme Court. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts on all issues, confirming that the defendants had encroached upon the plaintiffs' coal-land, the suit was not barred by limitation, and the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the coal removed and rendered unworkable. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
