1948 (3) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cceeded by the present Maharaja, the petitioner. Subsequently the question arose whether the grant included the mineral and subsoil rights. On account of interference with these rights, the Maharaja in 1922 brought a suit (Title suit No. 86 of 1922) against his half brother Kumar Jagat Mohan, and two lessees, Basu and Kirkwood. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. The High Court decreed it giving the Maharaja not only a declaration of title to the mineral rights, but a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from exercising such rights themselves or interfering with his exercise of them. On 11th June 1931, this decision was affirmed by the Privy Council Jagat Mohan Nath v. Pratap Udai Nath Deo. 3. In 1934 the Tori Estate went ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....contempt by persons named in the writ. None of the opposite party in present case were defendants in the suit or named in the decree. Mr. B.C. De for the petitioner seeks to overcome this difficulty upon the principle laid down in Avery v. Andrews 1882 51 L.J. Ch. 414 and Seaward v. Paterson (1897) 1 Ch 545 to the effect that persons not party to the injunction may be proceeded against for contempt for aiding and abetting the breach. 7. There can be, however, no question of aiding and abetting where there is no principal offender. There is no one whom the opposite party can be said to have aided and abetted. The principle, in my opinion, is not therefore applicable; and it seems to me that the decision of the Privy Council in the case of S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was forbidden by the injunction was itself an offence, Their Lordships can find no authority for so wide a proposition. It is certainly not enunciated or indeed hinted at the cases referred to nor do they think it is sound in principle. 8. They were then pressed with the argument that Ghosh and Banerjee were bound by the injunction as deriving title from the Secretary of State, and they said: The utmost which the respondents would say was that the Kalyanpur Company, having derived the supposed interest from the Secretary of State, who had been forbidden to interfere with the respondents' lease, were acting against the spirit if not the letter of the' injunction in taking or continuing in possession of the quarries, and were ther....