9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal for restoration of possession of limestone quarries; Validity of lease forfeiture; Contempt of court allegations; Application for restitution of possession under Sections 144 or 151, Civil P. C.
Analysis: 1. The case involves two consolidated appeals seeking restoration of possession of limestone quarries in Shahabad district. The quarries were initially leased to the respondent company by the Secretary of State, with specific covenants regarding assignment and transfer. In 1933, the lessee company entered into an agreement with Bose for the sale of the rights under the leases, subject to Board of Revenue's approval. However, the agreement was not registered. Subsequently, the Government purportedly forfeited the leases in 1934 due to covenant breaches, allowing the appellant company to work the quarries without a formal lease. The respondent company then filed a suit against the Secretary of State, resulting in conflicting judgments by the Subordinate Judge and the High Court. The Privy Council upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the invalidity of the unregistered transfer agreement with Bose in creating a forfeiture. 2. In 1936, the respondent company filed a contempt petition against the Secretary of State and the appellants for working the quarries. The High Court found all parties in contempt, leading to an appeal to the Privy Council. The Council allowed the appeal, determining that the Secretary of State did not breach the injunction, and the other appellants were not covered by its terms. Subsequently, the appellants sought restitution of possession under Sections 144 or 151, Civil P. C. The High Court rejected the applications, prompting the appellants to appeal for restoration based on the principle of justice and the inherent power of the Court. 3. The appellants argued that they were dispossessed due to the contempt order, which was later set aside, necessitating restoration to their previous position. While they could not rely on Section 144, Civil P.C, they invoked the Court's inherent power under Section 151 for the ends of justice. However, the Privy Council found the appellants to be trespassers following their judgment, as a valid lease existed with the respondent company. The Council emphasized that justice did not require ousting the lawful possessors in favor of the appellants, who lacked the right to retain possession. The Council also addressed the appellants' contention of not being bound by the previous suit adjudged by the Privy Council, highlighting the authoritative nature of the decision and dismissing the appellants' arguments regarding the registration exemption under Section 53A, T.P. Act. 4. The Privy Council concluded that the appellants were trespassers based on the existing lease and the invalidity of the unregistered transfer agreement. The Council emphasized that justice did not mandate reinstating the appellants to a position they had no right to occupy. The High Court's decision denying restitution was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed, with costs imposed on the appellants. The Council clarified that the decision did not prevent the appellants from pursuing a separate suit to establish possession but emphasized the current trespass status of the appellants and the lack of grounds for restitution.
|
