Appeals Nos 147  148 of 1966
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated November 15 1960 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No 212 of 1961
D P Singh K M K Nair and section P Singh for the appel lants in CA No 147 of 1966 and respondent No 2 in CA No 148 of 1966
A K Sen K K Sinha and R P Katriar for the appellant in CA No 148 of 1966
section T Desai R Chaudhuri P K Chatterjee and Arun Chandra Mitra for respondent No 1 in both the appeals
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah J
Subodh Gopal Bose hereinafter called the plaintiff  commenced an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Sasaram against four defendants the State of Bihar the Collector of Shahabad the Additional Sub Divisional Officer Sasaram and Dalmia Jain  Company Ltd
 for a decree declaring that he was entitled to quarry limestone for trade purposes from the Murli Hills described in the Schedule annexed to the plaint and for an injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff or granting a lease of the land to any other person
In the Schedule the two properties in respect of which relief was claimed were i the Upper Murli Hill admeasuring 137 acres together with subsoil and mineral rights situate in pargana Rohtas bearing Touzi No 4769 Tahsil Circle Sasaram and ii the Lower Murli Hill comprising an area of 250 bighas within the Banskati Mahal together with the surface subsoil and mineral rights situate in pargana Rohtas Touzi No 4771 Tahsil Circle Sasaram
The trial Court dismissed the suit
In appeal the High Court of Patna modified the decree passed by the trial Court and declared that the plaintiff was entitled to quarry limestone for trade purposes from the Lower Murli 315 Hill subject to the right which the owner of the Banskati Mahal had therein as set out in the judgment and restrained the defendants by a permanent injunction from dispossessing the plaintiff from the Lower Murli Hill described in the Schedule annexed to the plaint
With certificate granted by the High Court the State of Bihar and the Dalmia Jain and Company Ltd have separately appealed
By his plaint the plaintiff claimed that he was a tenant in possession of 250 bighas of land of the Lower Murli Hill within the Banskati Mahal and that he was in possession of the Upper Murli Hill as the local agent of the Kuchwar Company which held lease for twenty years from April 1 1928 to March 31 1948 for quarrying limestone and that under the covenant for renewal in the said leases the Kuchwar Company had remained in possession of the upper Murli Hill and the State of Bihar had accepted rent from the Company and had otherwise assented to the Company remaining in possession
The plaintiff also claimed that by immemorial custom and usage recognized by the survey authorities the plaintiff as a tenant of land within the Banskati Mahal had a right to quarry and remove limestone for trade purposes
The Court of First Instance held that at the date of the suit the plaintiff was in occupation of 250 bighas of land in the Lower Murli Hill but he was proved to have derived tenancy rights from the Zamindar only in respect of plot No 168 of Baknaur and plots Nos 42 128 130 and 44 of Samahuta
The Court further held that 3250 acres out of plot No 44 of Samahuta were acquired for the Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company and the plaintiff s right derived from the Zamindar was pro tanto extinguished
The Court also held that the lease in favour of the Kuchwar Company was not renewed that the customary right to excavate minerals for trade purposes claimed by the plaintiff in the Lower Murli Hill was not proved that the minerals in the Lower and Upper Murli Hill were vested in the State of Bihar and the plaintiff was merely a licensee from the State in respect of the Upper Murli Hill and was not a tenant holding over
In appeal to the High Court of Patna the claim to excavate minerals from the Upper Murli Hill was not pressed by the plaintiff
It was also conceded by the plaintiff that he was as found by the trial Court a tenant from the Zamindar only of five plots one in Baknaur and the other four in Samahuta
The finding that at the date of the suit the plaintiff was in occupation of 250 bighas of land was not challenged on behalf of the defendants
In the view of the High Court the right to the minerals in the Lower Murli Hill vested in the Zamindar and not in the State and the Banskati right was merely an incorporeal right to levy tax on the removal of various spontaneous products and minerals and did not extend to a right of ownership in the products and
the minerals
 The High Court also held that the custom pleaded by the plaintiff of the right to take for trade purposes limestone from the quarries within the Banskati Mahal was prov 316 ed
The High Court confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court insofar as it related to the claim to excavate limestone from the Upper Murli Hill and decreed the claim for a declaration that the plaintiff had the right to quarry limestone and manufacture lime from the Lower Murli Hill and to carry on trade in limestone subject to the right which the owner of the Banskati Mahal had of levying duty on the products removed and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the Lower Murli Hill
His Lordship after discussing the evidence held that It is sufficient to record that there is no evidence on the record of specific instances of the tenants of the villages having ever exercised the right to excavate limestone from the slopes of the Lower Murli Hill for domestic agricultural or trade purposes and proceeded The High Court placed very strong reliance upon the entries in the Custom Sheet prepared under the Bihar Tenancy Act 1885
Section 102 of the Act provides inter alia
Where an order is made under section 101 the particulars to be recorded shall be specified in the order and may include either without or in addition to other particulars some or all of the following namely       h the special conditions and incidents if any of the tenancy
 At the Cadastral Survey which was completed in 1913 a record of customs and practices was prepared
Exhibits 11 11 a and 11 b are the Custom Sheets in respect of the three villages Baknaur Samahuta and Murli Hill Upper Murli Hill
In respect of the villages Baknaur and Upper Murli Hill the Custom Sheets are in the form of questions and answers
Questions 12  13 and the answers thereto in the Custom Sheet of Baknaur may be set out 12
Whether or not the rai On obtaining free pass they yats have any right to can bring stone for construc take away stone if there tion of house and well
is one what is that 13Whether the raiyats have They can prepare lime for any right to take away cultivation work from the forests lime lac or any other in the Mahal
Nothing is forest product
If they realised for it
If they pre have one what is that pare lime for sale purposes fee is realised according to Schedule vide Memo
No 270 dated 14 12 1904 and lac jungle is made settlement
 By the Schedule of fees stone chips were chargeable at rates varying between 4 4 and 11 per ton and big stones for construction of houses were chargeable at the rate of Rs 12 per hundred
In Ext
II b relating to the Upper Murli Hill in answer to question No 12 it was recorded that the Hill has been given in B settlement ie in thika  only the tenants can get stone chips from the Hill
In answer to Question No 13 it was recorded that the 317 basti is unpopulated the Hill has been let out in settlement the people of the village cannot prepare lime from the Hill of this Mauza but they can prepare lime from the Hill of other Mauzas of this Mahal for cultivation purposes
 In Ext 11a which relates to the village Samahuta the relevant entries which are in narrative form are as follows The residents take away stones for constructing houses and wells and prepare lime for their personal use without paying any fee and for sale they pay fees according to the rates entered in the Schedule
Thika settlement is made in respect of lac
 Relying upon these entries the High Court held that the right to trade in limestone was vested by custom in the tenants in the Banskati Mahal
We are unable to accept this interpretation of the Custom Sheets The record is merely a catalogue of practices and privileges of the tenants in the villages within the Banskati Mahalthere is nothing to show that it was recorded that the practices and privileges were exercised as a matter of right by the villagers
Un doubtedly the record has presumptive value
But the revenue authorities were concerned to ascertain the existing state of affairs and not to determine whether the practices and privileges were ancient certain reasonable and continuous
As evidence of local custom the custom sheets have therefore not much value
There are again inherent indications in the custom sheets that the exercise of the privileges recorded therein was permissive
Harbans Rai descenent of Raja Shah Mal had imposed duties on the removal of forest produce and the minerals
There is no record of the nature of the duties imposed in the days of Harbans Rai and of exemptions if any
The entries in the custom sheets indicate that the forest produce and minerals taken by the tenants in the village were subject to certain duties
Imposition of duties upon forest produce and minerals was evidently in exercise of signorial rights
In the custom sheets of the villages Baknaur and Samahuta it is recorded that the tenants take minerals and forest produce for domestic and agricultural purposes but if they prepare lime for sale they have to pay duties
Recognition of the practice of taking stone and forest produce for domestic purposes without payment of duty is easily explained
In a predominantly agricultural commuinity it would have been regarded as churlish for the Zamindar who was for all practical purposes the local representative of the Ruler to deny to the tenants of lands the facility of taking articles of small value for domestic or agricultural purposes
Acceptance of liability to pay duties on forest produce and minerals taken for purposes other than domestic or agricul tural is destructive of the claim of a right to take the articles it indicates that the removal was permissive being only on payment of duty
The custom sheet of the Upper Murli Hill recites that because the Hill had been let out the tenants cannot prepare lime from 318 the Hill of the Mauza lends strong support to that view
Again the recitals in Exts
11 and 11 a that a thika settlement was made in respect of lac also leads to that inference it clearly implies that the tenants could not take lac from the forest because of the grant of a thika contract
The evidence therefore shows that even the practices recorded in the custom sheets were followed so long as the Government had not disposed of the corpus in favour of the contractors
The duties set out in the Schedules to the Custom Sheets are also not shown to be permanently fixed
The Schedule of fees mentioned in the Custom Sheets was apparently published on December 14 1904 and there is no evidence that it was merely a record of fees levied since the days of Harbans Rai
From the answer to question No 4 in the Custom Sheets it appears that the Government had treated the forest as a protected forest under a notification dated June 30 1909 and that implies that restrictions were imposed upon the taking and disposal of forest produce
The report dated December 17 1909 by Jagdum Sahai a Revenue Officer that as the custom throughout the Rohtas Pargana has been that the Zamindars and the cultivators and raiyats in all the villages in which the Government had its Banskati rights could take free of Government duty any quantity of timber lime and stone etc
for their domestic and agricultural purposes within the limits of their own village it was difficult to prevent or check the people of Samahuta Gurmain and Baknaur from entering into the pure Khas Mahal portion of this Hill to which they had no right for want of distinct marks of its boundary does not even by implication support a right to take forest produce and limestone for trade purposes
The record of customs and practices is in respect of Banskati Mahal and the area which originally extended over 500 sq
miles was later reduced to 200 sq
miles and consisted of 108 villages
The Custom Sheets recorded that the villagers were accustomed to take dry wood timber and bamboo for agricultural purposes Ind for construction of houses and that was permitted free of charge
Assuming that a customary right in that behalf is established removal of forest produce for other purposes with permits and on payment of duty fixed by the authorities cannot be said to be in exercise of a right
The conditions of obtaining permit and payment of fee for removal of the forest produce and limestone for purposes other than domestic and agricultural indicate that the removal was not as of right but depended upon the sanction of the authorities in whom the right to the Banskati was vested
In Ext
11 a the privilege recorded is of residents to take away stones for constructing houses and wells and prepare lime for their personal use without paying any fee and for sale they had to pay fees according to the rates entered in the Schedule
Granting that the expression residents means tenants if the privilege to take forest produce and stone is being subject to conditions of obtaining permits and payment of fee it cannot be regarded as a right enforceable against the State
319 In the plained it was it was claimed that by immemorial customs and usage the tenants in the Banskati Mahal had a right to quarry and remove limestone and manufacture lime from the quarries and hills within the Mahal
The plea apparently was that all tenants within the Banskati Mahal had the right to quarry and remove limestone and manufacture lime from all the limestone quarries and Hills within the Mahal and to carry on trade therein
Counsel for the plaintiff in this Court did not press for acceptance of this somewhat audacious claim and conceded that the right which the plaintiff merely claimed notwithstanding the unguarded phraseology used in the plaint was that a tenant of a village within Banskati Mahal is entitled under customary law to carry on quarrying operations for trade purposes on any forest waste land of the village irrespective of whether he is a tenant in respect of such forest land or not
 Counsel said that the right claimed by the plaintiff is exercisable only by tenants in the quarries and hills in their village and belonging to the Zamindar and not in other villages of the Banskati Mahal
This case was not pleaded in the plaint
Even if it be assumed that the plaintiff intended to set up a right not as extensive as it was pleaded and intended to restrict it only to the quarries and hills of the Zamindar in the village in which the tenant claiming the right resided in our judgment a customary right to quarry stone out of the Lower Murli Hill and to manufacture lime from limestone for trade proposes is not supported by the customsheets
We are not concerned in this case with the privilege of the tenants of taking for agricultural or domestic purposes pieces of stones either lying on the surface or even underneath the surface
Whether that would amount to a customary right enforceable against the owner of the surface and the minerals is a matter on which we do not feel called upon to express any opinion
The privilege of taking limestone for domestic and agricultural purposes is one privilege  the privilege of taking limestone for manufac turing lime by an agriculturist even if it be for sale with his primitive methods is another privilege and the privilege of commercial exploitation of more than a hundred thousand tons of limestone a year to be extracted out of the Lower Murli Hill with the aid of machinery is quite a different privilege and even the most liberal interpretation of the custom sheets will not be evidence of the exercise or grant of the last privilege
Therefore the customary right pleaded in the plaint that every tenant of any land covered by the Banskati Mahal was entitled to take limestone out of any quarry in any hill in Banskati Mahal and to trade in stone or lime manufactured out of the limestone is not supported by instances 320 of exercise of such right and is not supported by the entries in the Custom Sheets
The entries in the Custom Sheets contain on the other hand strong indications to the contrary
Even granting that the Custom Sheets recorded a local custom that the tenants in the villages of Baknaur and Samahuta excavated stones from the hills near their villages for purposes of trade a claim of right founded on that custom must be held unreasonable and incapable of enforcement by the sanction of a Court s verdict
The right exercisable by the tenants in the villages to excavate limestone for trade purposes was not claimed by the plaintiff as an easement it could not be so claimed for it is not a right which the owner or occupier of certain land possesses as such for the beneficial enjoyment of that land to do and continue to do something or to prevent and continue to prevent something being done in or upon or in respect of certain other land not his own Section 4 of the Indian Easements Act 5 of 1882
The Indian Easements Act no doubt makes no distinction for the purpose of acquisition by prescription between the right of easement strictly so called and the right which under the English common law is called a profit a prendre
By the Explanation to section 4 the expression to do something includes removal and appropriation by the dominant owner for the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant heritage of any part of the soil of the servient heritage or anything growing or subsisting thereon
A profit a prendre is therefore included in the definition of easement in section 4 of the Indian Easements Act
But an easement being a right which is super added to the ordinary common law incidents of the ownership of a dominant tenement and which connotes a corresponding burden on a servient tenement can only be created by grant or by statute
An apparent exception to this rule is a customary easement
But a customary easement is not an easement in the true sense of that expression
It is not annexed to the ownership of a dominant tenement and it is not exercisable for the more beneficial enjoyment of the dominant tenement it is recognised and enforced as a part of the common law of the locality where it obtains
A customary easement arises in favour of an indeterminate class of persons such as residents of a locality or members of a certain community and though not necessarily annexed to the ownership of land it is enforceable as a right to do and continue to do something upon land or as a right to prevent and continue to prevent something being done upon land
Sanction for its enforceability being in custom the right must satisfy all the tests which a local custom for recognition by courts must satisfy
A profit a prendre in gross that is a right exercisable by an indeterminate body of persons to take something from the land of others but not for the more beneficial enjoyment of a dominant tenement is not an easement within the meaning of the Easements 321 Act
To the claim of such a right the Easements Act has no application
Section 2 of the Easements Act expressly provides that nothing in the Act contained shall be deemed to affect inter alia to derogate from any customary or other right not being a license in or over immovable property which the Government the public or any person may possess irrespective of other immovable property
A claim in the nature of a profit a prendre operating in favour of an indeterminate class of persons and arising out of a local custom may be held enforceable only if it satisfies the tests of a valid custom
A custom is a usage by virtue of which a class of persons belonging to a defined section in a locality are entitled to exercise specific rights against certain other persons or property in the same locality
To the extent to which it is inconsistent with the general law undoubtedly the custom prevails
But to be valid a custom must be ancient certain and reasonable and being in derogation of the general rules of law must be construed strictly
A right in the nature of a profit a prendre in the exercise of which the residents of locality are entitled to excavate stones for trade purposes would ex facie be unreasonable because the exercise of such a right ordinarily tends to the complete destruction of the subject matter of the profit
It is said in Halsbury s Laws of England 3rd Edn
11 article 324 at p 173 If a right in alieno solo amounts to a profit a prendre it cannot be claimed under an alleged custom for no profit a prendre and therefore no right of common can be claimed by custom except in certain mining localities nor can there be a right to a profit a prendre in an undefined and fluctuating body of persons
 That view is supported by a considerable body of authority
In Lord Rivers vs Adams 1 it was held that the right claimed by inhabitants of a parish to cut and carry away for use as fuel in their own houses fagots or haskets of the under wood growing upon a common belonging to the lord of the manor is a right to a profit a prendre in the soil of another such a right cannot exist by custom prescription or grant unless it be a Crown grant which incorporates the inhabitants
The House of Lords in Harris and Another vs Earl of Chesterfield and Another2 held that a prescription in a que estate for a profit a prendre in alieno solo without stint and for commercial purposes is unknown to the law
In the case of Harris and Another2 the freeholders in parishes adjoining the river Wye were in the habit of fishing a non tidal portion of the river for centuries openly continuously as of right and without interruption not merely for sport or pleasure but commercially in order to sell the fish and make a living by it
The riparian proprietors claiming to be owners of the bed of the river brought an action of trespass against the freeholders for 1 LR 3 exhibit Div
2 322 fishing
It was held by a majority of the House of Lords that the legal origin for the right claimed by the freeholders could not be presumed and that the action by the plaintiffs was maintainable
In Lutchhmeeput Singh vs Sadaulla Nushyo and Others1 a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court accepted the prin ciple in the case of Lord Rivers vs Adams2
In that case the plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from fishing in certain bhils belonging to his Zamindar
The defendants pleaded inter alia that they had a prescriptive right to fish in the bhils under a custom according to which all the inhabitants of the Zamindari had the right of fishing
It was held that no prescriptive right of fishery had been acquired under section 26 of the Limitation Act and that the custom alleged could not on the ground that it was un reasonable be treated as valid
Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the present case falls within the principle enunciated by the House of Lords in Henry Goodman vs The Mayor and Free Burgesses of the Borough of Saltash3
The facts in Henry Goodman s case3 were peculiar
A prescriptive right to a several oyster fishery in a navigable tidal river was proved to have been exercised from time immemorial by a borough corporation and its lessees without any qualification except that the free inhabitants of ancient tenements in the borough had from times immemorial without interruption and claiming as of right exercised the privilege of dredging for oysters in the locus in quo from the 2nd of February to Easter Eve in each year and of catching and carrying away the same without stint for sale and otherwise
This usage of the inhabitants tended to the destruction of the fishery and if continued would destroy it
It was held by the House of Lords Lord Blackburn dissenting that the claim of the inhabitants was not to a profit a prendre in alieno solo that a lawful origin for the usage ought to be presumed if reasonably possible and that the presumption which ought to be drawn
as reasonable in law and probable in fact was that the original grant to the corporation was subject to a trust or condition in favour of the free inhabitants of ancient tenements in the borough in accordance with the usage
The case came before the Court of Common Pleas as a special case on facts stated that the mayor and corporation of Saltash as a corporation was the owner by prescriptive right of the bed and soil and several oyster fishery in the estuary of the River Tamar and that the free inhabitants of the ancient tenements in the borough of Saltash had from time immemorial without interruption and claiming as of right exercised the privilege of dredging for oysters in the river
The House was called upon to reconcile two conflicting rights of the corporation to the several fishery and of the free inhabitants to take oysters
The House reconciled the rights by 1 ILR Cal 698
2 LR 3 exhibit Div
3 7 AC 633 323 holding that the grant to the corporation of the soil and the oyster fishery which must be taken to have been a grant before legal memory was made by the Crown or the Duchy of Cornwall subject to a trust or condition binding on the grantee the corporation to allow the owners of ancient tenements within the borough the limited right to dredge for oysters notwithstanding that the right might lead to the destruction of the fishery
In Harris vs Earl of Chesterfield1 Lord Ashbourne observed at p 633 after referring to the judgment in Henry Goodman s case2 that It was a splendid effort of equitable imagination in furtherance of justice
The conception was reasonably possible and that sufficed
 In a recent case before the Court of Appeal in England Alfred F Beckett Ltd vs Lyons3 it was observed by Harman and Winn LJJ that the claim made on behalf of the inhabitants of the County Palatine of Durham that they were entitled by custom of the locality to collect sea borne coal from the foreshore being a profit a prendre a fluctuating body such as the inhabitants of a county could not acquire by custom a right of that nature
Counsel for the plaintiff also relied upon the observations made by Farwell J in Mercer vs Denne4 at p 557 that the period for determining whether a custom is reasonable or not is its inception
In Mercer s case4 fishermen who were inhabitants of the parish Walves were accustomed to spread their nets to dry on the land of a private owner at all times seasonable for fishing
In an action on behalf of the firshermen of the parish for a declaration of right in terms of the custom and an injunction restraining the owner of the land from building on or dealing with the land so as to disturb the right of the fishermen it was urged by the defendant that the custom was unreasonable because the sea may recede for a mile or more and it was impossible to sup pose that any such extent of ground could ever have been intended to be appropriated to such a custom
Farwell J observed that as the event had not happened for upwards of 700 years he could not see the unreasonableness of it
He also observed that the period for ascertaining whether a custom is reasonable or not is its inception
Counsel for the plaintiff relying upon those observations submitted that if the custom in its inception was unreasonable a more extensive burden imposed by the exercise of the custom by the passage of time does not make it unreasonable
It is difficult in the very nature of things to ascertain especially under the English law where proof by immemorial user must date back to the reign of Richard 1 ie 1189 AD the conditions existing at the inception of a custom assuming that one can trace its inception
It is 1 2 7 AC 633
3 4  557
324 however unnecessary to dilate upon that matter in this appeal if by the exercise of a customary right in favour of an indefinite body of persons the property which is the subject matter of the profit a prendre is in danger of being destroyed the customary right will not be recognised Arjun Kaibarta vs Manoranjan De Bhoumick1
Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the Court may ignore the exaggerated claim appearing from the averments in the plaint and declare relying upon the custom sheets a right to excavate limestone and to utilise it for trade purposes limited to the tenants in the two villages
We are unable to accede to that request
In the present case the right to take spontaneous produce of forest and minerals for domestic or agricultural purposes by the tenants is not in issue
What is in issue is the right claimable by all the tenants of the two villages even on the restricted interpretation of the claim set up by counsel for the plaintiff to excavate stone from all lands in the village for trade purposes by installing machinery
Such a custom would if exercised in its amplitude as claimed may lead to breaches of the peace for it would be open to all tenants to claim to work any quarry simultaneously for trade purposes and may also tend to the destruction of the subjectmatter
Such a custom would be unreasonable
The High Court was in our judgment in error in holding that the plaintiff had established the custom pleaded by him or that it was reasonable
The plaintiff had claimed in the plaint that he was at the date of the suit in possession of 250 bighas of land in the Lower Murli Hill
The trial Court held that the plaintiff established tenancy rights in respect of only five plots of land from the Zamindar plot No 168 in village Baknaur and four Plots Nos
42 44 128 and 130 in village Samahuta
It does not appear that this finding was challenged before the High Court
It is true that the plaintiff claimed that he was in possession at the date of the suit of 250 bighas in the two villages of Baknaur and Samahuta and it was so found by the trial Court and the finding was not challenged before the High Court either by the State or by the Dalmia Jain  Co Ltd But that claim of possession was apparently founded on the plea that the plaintiff was the representative of the tenant holding over under the leases granted by the State of Bihar to the Kuchwar Company
It was held that the plaintiff s occupation of the lands was not as a tenant holding over but was merely permissive so long as no final decision was made by the Government of Bihar on the application by the Kuchwar Company for renewal of the leases which had expired
After the Government decided not to grant renewal of the leases the plaintiff had no right as an agent of the Kuchwar Company to 1 ILR  325 remain in occupation of the lands other than those in which he had leasehold interest derived from the Zamindar
Counsel for the plaintiff has therefore restricted his claim to an injunction in respect of the land in which he establishes his interest as a tenant from the Zamindar
The claim of the plaintiff to a declaration in respect of the area of 3250 acres of land out of plot No 44 of Samahuta which was acquired for the Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company between the years 1912 and 1917 remains to be considered
The right of the Zamindar in the land together with all encumbrances in the land acquired was extinguished when possession was taken by the State in exercise of the authority of the Land Acquisition Act
Thereafter no one could claim in that land title derived from the Zamindar
30933 acres out of the land after it was transferred by the acquiring authority to the Railway was leased out to the Kuchwar Company and under a grant from the Kuchwar Company the plaintiff obtained the leasehold rights
The lease granted by the Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company to Kuchwar Company was in the first instance for one year and determinable by notice expiring with the end of the year
It was the case of the State and of Dalmia Jain  Company Ltd that by a notice served by the Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company upon the Kuchwar Company the lease was determined
The plaintiff contended at the trial that the notice was not received by the Kuchwar Company and therefore there was no determination of the lease
Manifestly the plaintiff cannot seek to enforce his right to the land acquired from the Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company as a tenant from the Zamindar and at the date of the suit the plaintiff had no right in the land for the conveyance by the Kuchwar Company in favour of the plaintiff was executed several months after the date of the suit
Neither the Kuchwar Company nor the Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company is on the record and it would be impossible in the circumstances to record any finding on the question whether the lease was terminated
But since the right of the Company was not transferred to the plaintiff before the date of the suit his claim for a declaration of his right and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession cannot be sustained The plaintiff as a tenant of the surface rights of the five plots of land in villages Baknaur and Samahuta but excluding the area acquired for the Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company is however entitled to protect his possession against unauthorised disturbance
We accordingly modify the decree passed by the High Court and declare that the plaintiff has no right by custom to excavate limestone for trade purposes out of the slopes of the Lower Murli Hill or from any other land of the villages in Baknaur and Samahuta for trade purposes
The decree passed in favour of the plaintiff restraining the State of Bihar its agents and servants and the 326 Dalmia Jain  Company Ltd from interfering with the plaintiff s possession is maintained in respect of plot No 168 of Baknaur village and plots Nos 42 128 130 and 44 excluding the land acquired for the Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company of the village Samahuta so long as the tenancy rights vested in the plaintiff are not lawfully determined
The appeals will accordingly be partially allowed
In these appeals the plaintiff claimed primarily to enforce his customary right to take valuable minerals from the Lower Murli Hill and he has failed to establish that right
The plaintiff will therefore pay the costs to the State of Bihar and the Dalmia Jain  Company Ltd throughout
One hearing fee in the two appeals in this Court
GC Appeals allowed in part


Summary:
Respondent No 1 acquired tenancy rights in five plots in the villages of Biknaur and Samahuta situated in the area known as Lower Murli Hill in District Shahabad Bihar
In 1949 he filed a plaint in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Sasaram against the State of Bihar and others claiming inter alia that as a tenant he had a customary right to quarry limestone for trade purposes from the Lower Murli Hill
The claim was based mainly on certain entries in the Custom sheets prepared at the time of the Cadastral Survey in 1913 under section 102 of the Bihar Tenancy Act 1885
The trial court rejected the claim but the High Court held the custom to be established by the evidence of the Customs sheets
The defendants appealed
Held The High Court was in error in holding that the plain tiff had established the custom pleaded by him or that it was reasonable
i There was nothing to show that the practices and privileges recorded in the Custom Sheets were exercised as a matter of right
The record has presumptive value
But the revenue authorities were concerned to ascertain the existing state of affairs and not to determine whether the practices and privileges were ancient certain reasonable and continuous
As evidence of local custom the custom sheets had therefore not much value
On the other hand there were indications that the exercise of the privileges recorded therein was permissive
Even on the most liberal interpretation they did not provide evidence of the exercise of the privilege of commercial exploitation of limestone from the area in question
317D 319G ii Even granting that the Custom sheets recorded a local custom that the tenants in the villages of Baknaur and Samahuta excavated stones from the hills near the villages for purposes of trade a claim of right founded on that custom must be held unreasonable and incapable of enforcement by the sanction of a court s verdict 320B A claim in the nature of a profit a prendre operating in favour of an indeterminate class of persons and arising out of a local custom may be held enforceable only if it satisfies the tests of a valid custom
A custom is a usage by virtue of which a class of persons belonging to a defined section in a locality are entitled to exercise specific rights against certain other persons or property in the same locality
To the extent to which it is inconsistent with the general law undoubtedly the custom prevails
But to be valid a custom must be ancient certain and reasonable and being in derogation of the general rules of law must be construed strictly
A right in the nature of a profit a prendre in the exercise of which the residents of a locality are entitled to excavate stone for trade purposes would ex facie 313 314 be unreasonable because the exercise of such a right ordinarily tends to the complete destruction of the subject matter of the profit
The custom if exercised in its amplitude as claimed may also lead to breaches of the peace for it would be open to all tenants to work any quarry simultaneously for trade purposes
321B D 324D Lord Rivers vs Adams LR3 exhibit Div 361 Harris  Anr
vs Earl of Chesterfield and Anr
  Alfred F Beckett Ltd vs Lyons  referred to Lutchhmeeput Singh vs Sadaulla Nushyo  Ors ILR 9 Cal
698 and Arjun Kaibarta vs Manoranjan De Bhoumick ILR  approved
Henry Goodman vs The Mayor and Free Burgesses of the Borough of Saltash
7 AC 633 and Mercer vs Denne  557 distinguished