Sunil Kumar Roy v. M/S. Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Ltd. & Ors.
M. c. Chagla, S. C .. Banerjee and A. K. Nag, for respond~nts
Nos. 1 and 2.
s. K. ROY v. BHOWllA COLLIER,IES (Grover, J.) 233
The Judpent of the Court was delivered by-
Grover, J.-This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment
of the Patna High Court. The facts may be shortly stated. By
a registered indenture of lease dated December 18, 1900 the
Eastern Coal Co. Ltd. was granted a lease by the Zamindar of
Jharia of certain land in mauza Gourkhanti in pargana Jharia.
The Eastern Coal Co. erected buifdings for manufacture of coke
and also constructed office and the quarters for the staff and the
labourers. On May 17, 1946 the Eastern Coal Co. sold the
machineries on the demised land to the appellant and also granted
a lease of the land on which the buildings stood to him. One
of the terms of the lease was that royalty would be paid by the
appellant at the rate of Re 1 per ton on despatches of coke. The
rate was subjecte<J. to being revised from time to time by mutual
arrangement between the parties ."as .may be justified by market
condition." According to the appel)imt the Eastern Coal Com
Pl¥1Y came to an arrangement in 1950 with him by which royalty
on breeze coke was to be paid at the rate of 2 As. per ton. In
December 1951 another arrangement was arrived at by which
royalty on hard coke was to be paid at the reduced rate of 8 As.
per ton instead o~ Re. 1 per ton stipulated in the lease dated
May 17, 1946. This arrangement was to be given effect to from
July 19, 1952. ·On January, 5, 1955 the Eastern Coal Com
p~ny informed the appellant that the colliery had been sold to
E the Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Ltd.-respondent No. 1, the
sale being effective from January l, 1955. Respondent No. 1
claimed royalty on all despatches of coke including breeze coke
at the rate of Re. 1 per ton. The appellant took up the posi
tion that by mutual agreement Eastern Coal Company had agreed
to the royalty beirig payable on hard coke at the rate o,f 8 As.
per ton and on breeze coke at 2 As. per ton. The appellant
F paid to respondent No. 1 the amount calculated 'according to tne
above rates.
On January 31, 1956 respondent No. 1 instituted a suit
against the appellant claiming a sum! of Rs. 23,287-4~3 ~ ac
count of royalty on all l@ds of coke despatqhed during! the
G period January 1955 to November 195!5 at the rate of Re. 1
per ton.. The Company further claimed damages at 6% per
-annum amounting to Rs. 1212-11-9. The appellant conte~ted
the suit, his main plea be~ that by virtue of the 'arrangement
arrived at with the Eastern Coal Company in accordance with
the terms of the lease dated May 17, 1946 the royalty was pay
able at the rate of Re. 1 per ton for hard coke and 2 As. per
H ton for breefe coke. The trial court accepted the p!ea of the
appellant about reduction of the rater. of royalty in terms of the
arrangement arrived at with the Eastern Coal Company. It was
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971 )3-S.C.R.
further held that the document Exh. A-4 in which this agree
ment or arrangement was incorporated did not required regis
.tration compulsorily and was admissible in evidence. The suit
was dismissed. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal to the
.High Court. Although the point with regard to the admissibility
of Exh. A-4 for lack of regiitration was raised before the High
Coun it did not give any decision on it. The judgment of the
High Court rested .on the finding that the appell~nt had failed
to prove that the reduction in the rate of royalty had been given
effect to from July 1952.
Mr. B. Sen for the appellant sought to raise the question
about the admissibility of Exh. A-4 for want of registration. In
the first place this contention canlliot be entertained so long as
the findin~ of the High Coun on the only point which was can
vas.sed before it about the reduction of the rate of royalty is not
set aside. The High Court had held after an examination of the
e.vidence that it h~d not bee.11 proved that there was ·~ny change
in the market condition in July or in December 1953 to call for
a reduction in the rate of royalty or that there was any mutual
;irrangeme,nt or agreement betwen the lessor or the lessee for such
a reduction which was to become effective from July 1952. No
attempt was made by Mr. Sen to persuade us to reverse this c~n
clusion. Even on the assumption that a mutual arrangement or
agreement as evidenced by Exh. A-4 yas arrived at between the
appellant and the Eastern Coal Co. Ltd. we are unable to ngree
that any reduction in the rate of royalty could liave been effected
bv means of Exh. A-4 which had not been registered under the
provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It is well settled by
now that a document which v·aries the essential terms of the exist
ing registered lease; such as the amount of rent, must be regis
tered : See Durga Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Narain Bagchi(')
which was approved by the Full Bench in .La/it Mohan Ghosh v.
Gopal Chuck Coal Company Ltd.(2). The decision of the Mad
ras High Court in Obai Gounden v. Ramalinl(a Ayyµr(~) taking
a contrary view has not been followed by the High Cou"ts in India
and the consist~! view that has been' taken is that registration
of an agreement is necessary which reduces the rent of an exist
ing registered lease : See Mulla on Indian Registratiorl Act. 7th
Edn. pp. 75-76,
The other contentions faintly raised before us arising out of
issue No. 3 and that Exh. A-4 had been acted µpon do not sur
vive in view of the conclusions arrived at by the High Court and
(2) 1.L.R. 39 Cal. 284. (1l T.L.R. 37 Cal. 293.
(3) I.LR. nMad. 217.
s. K. ROY v. BHOWRA COLLIERIES (Gorver, /.) 235
the view that we have taken about the admissibility of the afore
said docume.nt. The Civil Miscellaneous Petitions which were
filed in this Court shall stand dismissed as, in our opinion, no
ground has b.!en made out for admitting additional evidence or
for impleading the Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. as a party respondent
here.
The appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs.
G.C. Apjleal dismissed.
-~