9911796707
TMI Blog1941 (7) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have already twice been carried to this Board and the judgments given have made it unnecessary to go into detail in deciding this appeal. In 1928 the Secretary of State granted to the Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co., Ltd., the present respondents, quarrying leases for the term of 20 years of the quarries in question. There were covenants in each lease that the lessees would not assign the lease or transfer any right or interest thereunder or underlet the whole or any portion of the premises without the assent of the Board of Revenue of Bihar and Orissa, with a provision for forfeiture on breach. In 1933 the lessee company went into liquidation and in the same year the company agreed with one Bose for the sale to him of the rights under both lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perate to create a forfeiture. 3. In the meantime, in August 1936, the respondent company filed a petition in the High Court in the action alleging that the Secretary of State and the present appellants, Banerji and Ghose, had been guilty of contempt Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co. Ltd. v. Secretary of State, See ('37) 24 AIR 1937 Pat 65 in working the quarries. The High Court found all the parties to be in contempt: and on receiving an apology ordered them to pay the costs. The appellant company thereupon withdrew from the quarries and ceased to work them. The Secretary of State and the appellants, Banerji and Ghose, appealed to the Privy Council from the order made on the contempt application. In October 1938, the appeal was allowed S.N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ems no essential difference between the duty and power so expressed. Is it then necessary for the ends of justice that the appellants should be restored to possession: or did the order in contempt proceedings do them an injury? On the facts at present before the Court the appellants, as a result of the judgment of the Privy Council, were plainly trespassers. There is in existence a valid lease to the respondent company; and the lessors could grant to the appellants no rights inconsistent with it. In other words, the respondents are lawfully in possession of the premises, and it cannot be necessary for the ends of justice to oust them and put into possession the appellants who, when in, would have no right to retain possession. No injury w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot operate to create a form of transfer of property which is exempt from registration. It creates no real right: it merely creates rights of estoppel between the proposed transferee and transferor, which have no operation against third persons not claiming under those persons. The agreement in question according to the decision of the Privy Council was an effective transfer of an interest in the property. It was therefore registrable: and being unregistered was invalid: and could not operate as a breach of covenant so as to cause a forfeiture. This point fails the appellants, and they could suggest no other ground for supposing that they would establish any right to be in possession. 5. It is of course possible, though it seems very unli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
