KRISHNA CERAMICS AND REFRACTORIES Vs. K V NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant No. 1, the appellant herein, challenges the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 132 of 1983 dated 25-4-1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Rajahmundry wherein the suit seeking a declaration that the first defendant and not the plaintiff which is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 36,074-48 under a demand towards dues by the authorities under mining lease with interest and for granting a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from operating Bommur and Konda Guntur fire clay mines of the plaintiff was decreed.

(2.) As per the plaint, the plaintiff is the lessor and the defendant No. 1, is the lessee in pursuance of a lease agreement dated 31-5-1978 for a period of five years commencing from 16-6-1978 to 15-6-1983 and the defendant No. 1 has taken over the leasehold interest in respect of the manufacture of ceramics and potteries and fire bricks etc. The plaintiff had a lease in the Bommur fire clay mine in R.S.No. 40 measuring Ac. 5-00 from the second defendant, the State of Andhra Pradesh. The defendant No. 1 under the lease was authorized to excavate and remove fire clay as a licensee from the mine after complying with the formalities under the law and use the clay in the said factory for manufacturing purposes. Therefore, in pursuance of such lease, the defendant No. 1 having excavated the clay and carried on mining operations and in view of specific clause contained in the lease deed undertaking to pay all such taxes etc., it is the defendant No. 1 who is liable to pay the demand from the Department. The third defendant who is the Deputy Director of Mines had given a demand notice on 17-6-1983 for a sum of Rs. 36,074-48 to wards royalties. Thereupon, the plaintiff issued a notice on 29-6-1983 calling upon the defendant No. 1 to pay the same within ten days. Another notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. was also given on 22-6-1983 to the second defendant. In spite of the same, no payment was made by the defendant No. 1. Hence the suit.

(3.) In the written statement of the first defendant, the lessee, it was admitted that there was a lease dated 31-5-1978 and that the same commenced on 16-6-1978. However, it denied the liability towards any such demands from the Department of Mines. It was stated that the defendant No. 1 did not carry on the mining operation on the alleged dated of inspection and for the period of respect of which the demand was made. Accordingly, the defendant No. 1 replied to the demand notice. The plaintiff had filed another suit in O.S. No. 212 of 1981 in respect of the same subject matter and thus the suit is not maintainable. Further, no such liability can be fixed on the defendant No. 1 unless a proper enquiry is made by giving an opportunity.