ALLAREDDI SUDARSANAMMA Vs. B V RAGHAVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals related to O.S. No. 78 of 1955 and O.S. No. 18 of 1956 which were jointly tried by the Subordinate Judge, Nellore and dismissed OB the preliminary point that the suits were out of time. The parties are the same, the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 78 of 1955 being the defendants in O.S. No. 18 of 1956 and vice versa. They were cross-suits. The plaintiffs in both the suits are the appellants.

(2.) The facts which led to the suits may be briefly stated. In this discussion I shall refer to the parties as arrayed in O.S. No. 78 of 1955 which was the earlier action laid on 5th December, 1955. Thecross-suit was filed on 7thMarch, 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 part of which is also referred to as ' Fresh Water Pit.' The defendants, were also lessess of 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 and Margin Mica Mine. Narayana Reddy since dead was the lessee to work the former mine. Both the leases were for a period of 30 years. The mica was being exploited by the lessess by themselves or by sub-leasing. Both the mines were adjacent to each other. While so thg plaintiffs noticed underground encroachments by the defendants and appropriation of the mica in about 1950 and complained to the Collector.

(3.) The defendants similarly complained of encroachmen ts and appropriation of the mica bypetitions, dated 2nd September, 1948 and 24th October, 1949. On these complaints an underground survey was under taken by an officer of the mining department in 1951 and he made a report, dated 13th March, 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 20th March, 1953. In this report, the plaintiffs alleged that the said officer of the mine observed that encroachments had been made from both mines beyond the dividing boundary into the adjoining mines and connections had been made from one mine to the other. The Officer of the mines 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 the communication of the report, they became aware definitely of unlawful encroachments by the defendants into their mine area and extraction of valuable mica. 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 of rupees. Alleging that the cause of action for the suit arise in March 1953 when the plaintiffs became aware of the actual encroachments 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 : "Therefore the plaintiff prays : (a) that the underground encroachments into the plaintiff's mine by the defendants be ascertained ; and an accurate plan be prepared ; (4) that the quantity of mica wrongfully extracted from the said encroached tunnels be determined and its value ascertained and that a decree be passed directing defendants to pay the full value thereof to the plaintiff ; (c) to pass suitable orders preventing defendants from making further encroachments into the plaintiff's mine and also to close the said encroached tunnels at the points of encroachments by granting a Mandamus injunction and for consequential reliefs if the defendants do not build up the walls ; (d) to grant the costs of this suit ; and (e) to grant such other and fvirther reliefs as may seem just and reasonable under the circumstances of the case. "