9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Title to underground rights in villages formerly part of Totapalli estate. Analysis: The appellant, referred to as the plaintiff, appealed against a High Court decree dismissing his suit regarding the title to underground rights in villages purchased by his father in 1879. The dispute arose when the tahsildar collected royalties from the plaintiff's tenants for removing gravel and stone, claiming the underground rights belonged to the Government. The main issue was the title to these underground rights, with the plaintiff claiming they passed to his father in 1879 or were acquired subsequently. The lower courts initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the High Court set aside these decisions, leading to the current appeal. The history of the Totapalli estate revealed that it was originally held under a grant subject to fixed rent and military obligations. The plaintiff contended that the estate was originally held by independent chieftains, not under any grant. However, the Privy Council held that they could not review or modify the lower court's findings of fact. The crucial question was whether the underground rights passed under the original grant, which lacked evidence of inclusion. The absence of proof that the grant encompassed underground rights or that minerals were ever exploited by the estate's holders led to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim. The lower courts' presumption that all rights passed under the grant was rejected by the Privy Council, emphasizing that Indian grants should not be interpreted based on English property law principles. Citing precedents, the Council established that unless there is express evidence, minerals are not automatically part of a tenure grant. Applying this principle, the Council upheld the High Court's judgment, ruling against the plaintiff's claim to underground rights. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision and ordering costs against the appellant.
|
