Mining leasehold transfer to partnership requires prior written consent; unauthorized contribution remains void and protectable by receivership.

A mining leasehold brought by co-lessees before formation of a partnership did not become partnership property merely because it was used for partnership business. A contribution or transfer of mining leasehold rights to a partnership required previous written consent under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960; without that consent, the transfer was invalid. Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 also rendered any lease or interest acquired in contravention of the Act or Rules void and of no effect. On that basis, the original lessee retained a subsisting leasehold interest, which could support a strong prima facie case and justify protection of the property by receivership.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and a subsisting interest in the leasehold mining property so as to justify appointment of a receiver, and whether an alleged contribution or transfer of the mining leasehold to the partnership without previous written consent of the Government was valid.

Analysis: The suit property was acquired by the plaintiff and defendant as co-lessees before the later partnership was formed, and the record did not show that the leasehold was brought into the stock of the partnership or acquired by it. Mere use of the property for partnership business did not convert it into partnership property. A contribution of mining leasehold rights to a partnership would amount to a transfer, and under Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, such transfer required previous written consent of the State Government. Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 rendered any mining lease or interest acquired in contravention of the Act or the Rules void and of no effect. On this basis, the plaintiff retained a subsisting leasehold interest and showed a strong prima facie case. That was sufficient equitable ground for protection of the property by receivership.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to a receiver, and the refusal of the court below was wrong.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order refusing receivership was set aside, and the suit property and partnership assets were placed under receivership subject to the trial court's control.

Ratio Decidendi: A mining leasehold cannot be treated as partnership property or as validly transferred to a partnership without prior written consent required by the governing mining rules, and a contravention of that mandatory requirement renders the transaction void and leaves the original lessee with a subsisting interest capable of protection by receivership.

---