STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus SUBODH GOPAL BOSE & ANR.

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus SUBODH GOPAL BOSE & ANR.

The High Court erred in holding that the plaintiff had established a reasonable custom permitting trade quarrying of limestone; the evidence from custom-sheets was not sufficient to prove a legal right, and the alleged custom was neither ancient, certain, nor reasonable. The custom, if exercised as claimed, would be unreasonable, tending to destruction of the subject matter and possible breaches of peace. Thus, the customary right claimed could not be granted.

Parties
Appellant: State of Bihar; Respondent: Subodh Gopal Bose; Appellant: Dalmia Jain & Company Ltd.; Respondent: Collector of Shahabad; Respondent: Additional Sub-Divisional Officer Sasaram; Appellant: A. K. Sen, K. K. Sinha, R. P. Katriar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 August 1967
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part
Legal Topics
Customary Easement, Profit a Prendre, Tenancy Rights, Mineral Rights
Property Law Customary Easement Profit a Prendre Tenancy Rights Mineral Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Bihar

Appellant

Subodh Gopal Bose

Respondent

Dalmia Jain & Company Ltd.

Appellant

Collector of Shahabad

Respondent

Additional Sub-Divisional Officer Sasaram

Respondent

A. K. Sen, K. K. Sinha, R. P. Katriar

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenants of Lower Murli Hill (Shahabad District) had a customary right to quarry limestone for trade purposes under the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, s.102 and custom-sheets;
  2. 2 Whether such right could be claimed as a profit a prendre or customary easement;
  3. 3 Whether the custom pleaded was reasonable and proved.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in holding that the plaintiff had established a reasonable custom permitting trade quarrying of limestone; the evidence from custom-sheets was not sufficient to prove a legal right, and the alleged custom was neither ancient, certain, nor reasonable. The custom, if exercised as claimed, would be unreasonable, tending to destruction of the subject matter and possible breaches of peace. Thus, the customary right claimed could not be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part

Orders

  • Plaintiff has no right by custom to excavate limestone for trade purposes from the slopes of the Lower Murli Hill or other land of villages Baknaur and Samahuta for trade purposes
  • Permanent injunction maintained in favour of plaintiff only in respect of plot No. 168 of Baknaur and plots Nos. 42, 128, 130, and 44 (excluding land acquired for Dehri-Rohtas Light Railway Company) in Samahuta, as long as tenancy rights vested in plaintiff are not lawfully determined