9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to suspension of rents and royalties. 2. Whether any portion of the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Suspension of Rents and Royalties: The primary issue in the case was whether the defendant (Receiver) was entitled to suspension of rents and royalties due to alleged dispossession from part of the leasehold property. The defendant argued that the minerals specifically excluded in clause 16 of the earlier lease of 1900 were included in the later lease of 1919, and since the lessor had granted leases to other parties for these minerals, the lessee was entitled to suspension of rents. The court examined the leases and found that the minerals excluded by clause 16 of the 1900 lease were not included in the 1919 lease. The disposition clause of the 1919 lease granted rights to "all metals and minerals of whatsoever kind or description other than those specifically comprised in and granted by the principal lease." This indicated that the minerals excluded in the 1900 lease remained excluded in the 1919 lease. The court emphasized that the intention of the parties must be ascertained from the words used in the disposition clause, interpreted in their strict, natural grammatical sense. The court also noted that the concluding words of the 1919 lease stated that the principal lease would remain valid and subsisting, which reinforced the exclusion of the minerals mentioned in clause 16 of the 1900 lease. Therefore, the court concluded that the minerals mentioned in clause 16 of the principal lease were not granted by the later lease, and the plea of suspension of rents based on dispossession of these minerals must fail. 2. Limitation of the Plaintiff's Claim: The second issue was whether the plaintiff's claim for the period prior to August 12, 1935, was barred by limitation. The plaintiff argued that limitation was saved by acknowledgments made by the previous Receiver of the estate. The court examined the acknowledgments, particularly a letter dated March 7, 1931, which stated the amounts due as royalty. The court found that these acknowledgments were not conditional and were clear statements of the dues. The court rejected the argument that the acknowledgments were subject to acceptance of the statements of account. The court also addressed whether an acknowledgment by the Receiver of an estate is an acknowledgment by an agent of the owners of the estate "duly authorised in this behalf" within the meaning of Explanation II of section 19 of the Limitation Act. The court held that "duly authorised" includes authorization by law or by an order of the court, not just by the debtor. In this case, the suit was based on the second lease of 1919 executed in favor of the then Receiver, and the acknowledgments were made by a previous Receiver through whom the current Receiver derived liability. Therefore, the acknowledgments were valid under section 19 of the Limitation Act, and limitation was saved for the period prior to August 12, 1935. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' findings that the minerals excluded by clause 16 of the 1900 lease were not included in the 1919 lease, and the plea of suspension of rents failed. Additionally, the court confirmed that the acknowledgments by the previous Receiver saved the limitation period for the plaintiff's claim prior to August 12, 1935. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
