Underground rights under village grants require express proof; no presumption transfers mineral rights or reopens concurrent facts in second appeal.

Underground rights did not pass under the original village grant to the mansabdar because there was no evidence that the grant included mineral or subsoil rights, and no presumption could be made that all rights of the grantor transferred in the absence of express material terms. The document also states that Indian grants are not governed by the English-law assumption that a grantor passes everything he owns. On second appeal, a gross or erroneous finding of fact was not treated as a sufficient ground for reassessment, so the concurrent factual finding was left undisturbed and the plaintiff failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the underground rights in the villages passed under the original grant to the mansabdar, and whether such rights could be inferred in the absence of express evidence; whether the High Court was justified in refusing to reassess the concurrent finding of fact in second appeal.

Analysis: The material before the lower courts supported the finding that the estate had been held under a grant from the zamindar subject to fixed rent and military service. In second appeal, the Court declined to revisit the finding of fact, holding that a gross or erroneous finding of fact is not, by itself, a ground for second appeal under the Civil Procedure Code. On the substantive issue, the Court held that there was no evidence that the grant included underground or mineral rights, and no presumption could be raised that all rights of the grantor passed to the grantee merely because the terms of the grant were not produced. Indian grants are not governed by an English-law presumption that the grantor passes all that he has.

Conclusion: The underground rights did not pass under the grant, and the High Court was right in holding against the plaintiff.

---