1955 (5) TMI 18 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the electric undertaking at Giridih.
2. Validity of the agreement under Section 9 of the Electricity Act.
3. Authority of Mr. S.C. Chaudhary to lodge a claim on behalf of the Corporation.
4. Applicability of Section 52(2)(c) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act.
5. Limitation period for the suit under the Limitation Act.
6. Entitlement to permanent injunction against the defendants.
7. Title and possession of the land on which the power house stands.
8. Consideration of subsequent events in the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of the Electric Undertaking at Giridih:
The court examined the evidence and concluded that the properties in dispute described in Schedule 2 of Annexure A to the plaint were acquired by and belonged to the Corporation. The properties were not owned by the defendants, as they contended.

2. Validity of the Agreement under Section 9 of the Electricity Act:
The court dismissed the contention that the agreement (Ex. 23) was void under Section 9 (2) and (3) of the Electricity Act. It was noted that the arrangement between the Corporation and the licensee did not attract the operation of Section 9 (2) and (3) of the Act. The arrangement had been communicated to the Government of Bihar, and the properties owned by the Corporation were not in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Act.

3. Authority of Mr. S.C. Chaudhary to Lodge a Claim on Behalf of the Corporation:
The court found that Mr. S.C. Chaudhary had no authority to lodge any claim on behalf of the Corporation in the insolvency proceedings. This was based on the evidence that Mr. Chaudhary was not authorized to prove any debt on behalf of the Corporation in March and June 1935, when the claims were filed.

4. Applicability of Section 52(2)(c) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act:
The court held that the electric undertaking at Giridih, consisting of power house, plants, and machineries, could not be called "goods" within the meaning of Section 52(2)(c) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. Hence, the undertaking did not vest in the official assignee under this provision.

5. Limitation Period for the Suit under the Limitation Act:
The court determined that the properties in question were akin to "immovable property" rather than "movable property." Therefore, the suit for possession was governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act, not Article 49. The possession of the defendants did not become adverse to the plaintiff until a hostile attitude was expressed in 1939, and the suit was filed within the limitation period.

6. Entitlement to Permanent Injunction Against the Defendants:
The court upheld the grant of permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 4. It was held that the restitution order from the Patna High Court did not preclude the plaintiff from seeking a declaration of title and confirmation of possession. The injunction was necessary to prevent the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession.

7. Title and Possession of the Land on Which the Power House Stands:
The court noted that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove that a lease was executed for the land on which the power house stood. However, the plaintiff did not press the claim to the land as it had been acquired by the State of Bihar. Therefore, the court did not confirm or set aside the decree regarding the land.

8. Consideration of Subsequent Events in the Appeal:
The court acknowledged the subsequent acquisition of the land by the State of Bihar and its purchase of the plaintiff's right, title, and interest. It held that in exceptional cases, subsequent events could be considered to do justice and shorten litigation. The acquisition by the State of Bihar was deemed valid and in the public interest.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with the judgment and decree of the lower court being confirmed regarding the title and possession of the properties in Schedule II and the grant of permanent injunction. The issue of title to the land was deemed moot due to its acquisition by the State of Bihar. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.