AKSHARA BRAHMA MINES AND DEVELOPMENT Vs. KAMPA HANOKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs in the suit filed the above revision against order dtd. 20/10/2021 in I.A.No.92 of 2021 in O.S.No.45 of 2019 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

(2.) Plaintiff filed O.S.No.45 of 2019 against five defendants seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs' possession over the suit schedule property and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore machinery back in the plaint schedule property.

(3.) In the plaint, it was contended, inter alia, that plaintiff No.1, partnership firm was registered on 8/2/2016. It is engaged in the business of quarrying of colour granite, which is marketed in domestic and international markets. Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh awarded mining rights vide proceedings No.52065/R1-1/2011 dtd. 22/2/2014 in favour of Nibran Nimmala. Lease agreement was entered into vide lease agreement, dtd. 4/2/2014 for the purpose of quarrying colour granites in an extent of 3.22 hectares or Ac.7.9534 cents, forming part of survey Nos.20, 21, 22/1, 22/2, 23, 23/19, 23/423/2 situated at Palasavalasa village, Bamini Mandal, Srikakulam District for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 4/4/2014 to 3/4/2034. Said Nibran Nimmala entered into 'raising and selling agreement' with M/s. PVR Enterprises, plaintiff No.3, represented by its Managing Partner i.e. plaintiff No.2, on 28/3/2014. Plaintiff No.3 invested crores of rupees and also purchased heavy machinery. b) Plaintiff No.3 is responsible for entire business of day to day activities by appointing skilled and unskilled workers, accounting, transportation, etc. Plaintiff No.2 and Nibran Nimmala entered into partnership agreement, dtd. 8/1/2016 agreeing for investment and profit sharing at the rate of 95% : 5% and got registered partnership deed in the name and style of plaintiff No.1, authorizing plaintiff No.2 as its authorized signatory. c) Defendants, who have no manner of right, title, interest much less possession, are interfering with day to day mining/quarrying activities being conducted by the plaintiff and his authorized persons in the area allocated. Defendant Nos.4 and 5, at the instigation of defendants No.1 to 3 trespassed into suit schedule premises and removed excavation machines mentioned in 'B' schedule property, by threatening the employees. Police complaint was lodged on 25/6/2019. However, no action was initiated. With the above averments, in brief, the suit was filed seeking perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction.