- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
James E. Powell v. L.B. Powell
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff, Mr. James E. Powell, sued for a declaration that he and his lessees were owners of certain stretches of the river Asan and for other reliefs. The Court of first instance granted the plaintiff a decree. The lower appellate Court reversed that decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The parties belong to a family that originally owned lands on the south side of the river Asan (the north-side lands are not in dispute). In 1869 the family entered into an agreement for partition into five equal shares; the partition's execution occupied considerable time and involved disputes. The plaintiff's claim is that by the partition he acquired land abutting the river on the south side and the bed of the river up to the middle of the stream, together with the exclusive right of fishing in those parts.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, when land is granted or allotted by partition and is bounded by a stream, the grantee is entitled to the bed of the stream up to the middle point.
- Whether the 27 May 1869 partition agreement's proviso (reserving rights of use of wells, tanks and water-courses) operated to reserve the bed of the river or any right of fishing.
- Whether ordinary rules of construction of grants apply to grants effected by partition between co-sharers.
- Whether any alleged reservation of fishing rights would continue to apply notwithstanding changes in the course of the river.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The plaintiff claimed that the partition resulted in his acquiring land abutting the south side of the river Asan and the bed of the river up to the middle, which carried with it exclusive fishing rights.
Defendant's Arguments / Position
- The defendant's written statement did not allege any reservation of the river bed or of fishing rights under the partition agreement.
- An admission made in the Court below regarding Mr. James E. Powell's exclusive right to part of the river was noted as being contrary to the view taken by the learned District Judge.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analysed the case as decided on a preliminary point of law by the learned District Judge and agreed with that Judge's core legal views. The Court stated the established rule that where land is granted bounded by a stream the grantee is entitled to the bed of the stream up to the middle point, subject to any reservation in the grant. It explained that grants made by partition between co-sharers are to be treated like other grants for the purpose of construction—the grantors being the other co-sharers and the recipient being the grantee—so ordinary rules of construction apply. The Court examined the 27 May 1869 agreement, which divided the property into five equal shares and contained a proviso reserving "the use of wells, tanks, wat recourses and the like" but did not reserve the river or its bed. The Court concluded that this proviso could not have prevented acquisition of the river bed up to the middle point if the bed was expressly allotted or if adjoining land was allotted. The Court also found no reservation of the right of fishing in the instrument and noted the defendant had not pleaded such a reservation; it observed that if fishing had been reserved by the clause it would have persisted despite any change in the river's course.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; CASE REMANDED.
Direct effects: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court, and remanded the case to that Court under Order 41, Rule 23 with directions to re-admit the appeal on its original number and to hear and determine it according to law, having regard to the Court's statements. Costs here and heretofore were ordered to be costs in the cause and to include in this Court fees on the higher scale. The opinion does not purport to create or state any new legal precedent beyond applying established rules of construction in the partition context.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed a declaration that he and his lessees were owners of certain stretches of the river Asan and other reliefs. The Court of first instance granted the plaintiff a decree. The lower appellate Court reversed the decree of the Court of first instance and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The family to which the plaintiff Mr. James E. Powell and the defendant belong originally owned lands on the south side of the river Asan. They also owned land on the north side, but this part of the property does not appear to be in dispute in the present suit. In the year 1869 the family entered into an agreement for partition. The actual carrying out of this agreement occupied considerable time and involved disputes. The claim of Mr. James E. Powell apparently is that as the result of the partition he acquired land which abutted the river on the south side and also the bed of the river up to the middle of the stream, and this carried with it the exclusive right of fishing in the river at these points. It has not been very clearly shown whether the bed of the river was expressly partitioned. The lower appellate Court has in reality decided the present case on a preliminary point of law. The learned Judge was of opinion, and we think correctly, that where land is granted which is bounded by a stream the grantee is entitled to the be of the stream up to the middle point. The grant, however, may contain reservation. When co-sharers partition their property between themselves, the grantors are in law all the co-sharers other than the particular person to whom a particular portion is allotted. The latter is the grantee, and we can sea no reason why the ordinary rule of construction should not apply to a grant in partition just as to any other grant. The learned District Judge considered that as the parition originally originated in an agreement, dated 27th May 1869, the provisions of that agreement ought to govern the rights, of the various persons in the property which was subsequently allotted to them. For the purposes of the present appeal we will assume that this view was correct. The agreement, after providing that the property should be divided into five equal shares, contains the following proviso:
“Provided always that this division shall not interfere with any right common to either side as aforesaid, such as the use of wells, tanks, wat recourses and the like, whether for drinking purposes, watering of cattle and irrigation”.
2. It will be noticed that this reservation, if it may be so called, was not a reservation either of the river or its bed. It was a reservation of the use of wells, tanks and water-courses. It seems clear, therefore, that this provision in the deed could not have prevented the plaintiff, or his predecessor-in-title acquiring the bed of the river up to the middle point, if the bed has been expressly allotted to him or if he had been allotted lands adjoining the river. It is a well-recognised rule of construction that a grant is construed in favour of the grantee rather thin of the grantor.
3. There is no reservation of the right of fishing. Even in the written statement the defendant did not allege that there had been any such reservation. The admission which was made in the Court below as to Mr. James E. Powell's exclusive right to part of the river is contrary to the view taken by the learned District Judge. If the right of fishing was reserved by virtue of the clause to which we have referred, then that right would still have remained not withstanding any change in the course of the river. As already stated, the case has been decided by the learned District Judge on a preliminary point. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and remand the case to him under O. 41, R. 23, with directions to re-admit the appeal upon its original number on the file and to proceed to hear and determine the same according to law, paying due regard to what we have stated. Costs here and heretofore will be costs in the cause and will include in this Court fees on the higher scale.
V.B/R.K
4. Case remanded.
Alert