MAYURI GRANITES Vs. VENKATESWARA GRANITES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No.21 of 1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Warangal filed this Appeal against the order dated 16-5-1995 made in LA. No.294 of 1995 in C.M.A. No.2 of 1995 by the learned Vacation Civil Judge (Addl. District Judge), Warangal.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as under: The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of Ac. 12-00 in S.No. 132 of Keshavapur village, Duggondi Mandal, Warangal District. The plaintiff claims to be the tenant of the respondent under lease agreement dated 21-11-1992 in respect of the said land. The respondent denied about the existing of the lease in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the said land. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, granted temporary injunction in respect of Ac.3-00 only out of Ac.12-00 and refused to grant injunction in respect of remaining Ac.9-00. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal. In appeal CMA No.2 /95, the plaintiff filed LA. No.294/95 seeking temporary injunction in respect of the remaining Ac.9-00 also. According to the plaintiff, the trial Court erred in considering the lease only in respect of Ac.3-00; that the lease in question cannot be split up under law; as such the trial Court ought to have granted injunction in respect of total Ac.12-00 of land. The respondent opposed that application by contending that there is no lease existing in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Ac. 12-00; that basing on the alleged licence granted by the Mining Department, the injunction was considered to that extent and as such it should be suspended. The lower appellate Court, after hearing the Counsel for both sides and after perusing the entire record, passed order directing status quo obtaining as on 16-5-1995 to be maintained and further directed the plaintiff to carry out mining operations in respect of Ac.3-00 by haying ingress and agress to the said land from the road-side and the respondent shall not cause interference to the plaintiff to that extent. The lower appellate Court also directed the respondent not to disturb the machinery and material belonging to the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court also permitted the respondent to carry out mining operations in respect of 2l/2 acres of land as shown in the plan annexed to the licence proceedings.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred this appeal, assailing the same as contrary to law and opposed to facts and circumstances of the case.