SUDARSANAMMA Vs. RAGHAVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals relase to O. S. 78 of 1955 and O. S. 18 of 1956 which were family tried by the Subordinate Judge, Nellore and dismissed nn the preliminary point that the suits were out of time. The parties are the same, the plaintiffs in 6. S. 78 of 1955 being the defendants in O 3. 18 of 1955 and vice versa. They were cross-suits, The plaintiffs in both the suits are the appellants. The facts which led to the suits raay be briefly stated. In this discussion, I shall refer to the parties as arrayed in O. S. 78 of 1955 which was the earlier action laid on 5-12-1955. The cross suit was filed on 7-3-1956. The plaintiffs were lessees for exploiting mica in S. No 499 of Turimerla Village, Rapur Taluk, Nellore District, under the name and style of Seetharama Mica Mine, a patt of which is also referred to as "Fresh Water Pit". The defendants were also lessees ot the Government to exploit the mica in S. No. 500. They were so exploiting the mica under the name and style of Pattabhirama Mica Mine arid Margin Mica Mine. Narayana Reddy, since dead, was the lessee to work the former mine. Bath the leases were for a period of 30 years. The mica was being explored by the lessees by themselves or by rubleasing. Both the mines were adjacent to each other. While so the plaintiffs nouced underground encroachments by the defendants and appropriation of the mica in about 1950 and complamed to the Collector. The defendants similarly complained of encroachments and appropriation of the mica by petitions dated 2-9-194b and 24--10--1949. On these complaints an underground survey was undertaken by an officer of the Mining Departmnet in 1951 and he made a report dated 13-3-1953 and communicated the same to the parties. The plaintiffs alleged that they received a report of the survey in the month of March 1953 and the defendants alleged that they received it on 20-3-3953. In this report, the plaintiffs alleged that the said Officer of the mines observed that encroachments had been made from both the mines beyond the dividing boundary into the adjoining mines and connections had been made from one mine to the other. The Officer of the min"s therefore suggested that a solid ground of not less than 25 ft, thick should be left on either side of the boundary line so that a barrier of 50 ft. wide would remain unworked The plaintiffs alleged further that, on trie communication of the report, they became aware definitely of ten unlawful encroachments by the defendants into their mine area and extraction of valuable rnica. The extent of encroachments were set out by them in schedule C. They alleged that the mica extracted from the encroached portions was worth about 3 lakhs oi rupees. Alleging that the cause of action for the suit arose in March 1953 when the Plaintiffs became aware of the actual encroachements made by the defendants into their mine after receipt of the survey map from the Chief Inspector of Mines, they laid the suit for damages and for other reliefs which were set out thus:

(2.) For purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs valued the suit at Rs,ll,000/-and paid a court fee of Rs .757-7-0 thereon alleging that the valuation was tentative, and that they undertook to pay such further court fee as may be payable by them on the amount of damages made payable to them. The Defendants in their written statement repudiated the allegations of encroachment made aganst them and made counter allegations of encroachment by the plaintiffs and appropriation of the mica in the years 1943 and 1949. They alleged that they had sent petitions to the District Collector complaining cf there encroachments on 2-9-1948 and 24-10-1949. Then there was a survey by the Mining Officers in about the middle of the year 1951 and the report by the said officer was received on 20-3-1953. They alleged that from the report and the plan communicated by the Officer of the Mining Department, they became a ware of encroachment into the Margin Mine in areas marked red in the sketch filed in their suit O, S. 18 of 1956 and the removal cf large qi amity of mica of the value of more than 3 lakhs of rupees. They prayed that their plaint in O S. 18 of 1956 might be read as part and parcel of their written statement. That meant that they made a counter claim alleging encroahment into their mines and praying for reliefs which were set out thus; (para 16)

(3.) The suit was valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction tentatively at Rs. 10,500/-alleging that they (the Plantiffs in O.S.18 of 1956) were ready and willing to pay such further court fee as may be required as and when the amount due to them was actually determined after the taking of accounts. The defendants filed the cross suit O. S. 18 of 1956 on 7-3-1956 with the allegations as alleged in their written statement in O. S. 78 of 1955. The plaintiffs filed a written statement in O.S. 18 of 1656 reiterating tteir allegations in O. S. 78 of of 1955.