SAMPAT KUMAR Vs. CHHITAR RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent no.1 instituted a suit for declaration of rights and permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Makrana, stating therein that Mine No.1 situated at Matabhar Range, Makrana, was earlier belonging to one Mohammad Ismail, and later on, the same was allotted to the father of the respondent no.1; the petitioner was financier of the respondent's father, who was excavating mines on contract basis. Thereafter, the petitioner gave Rs.9.00 lacs per annum as share for the mine in question to the family of the respondent no.1, and then the petitioner got the lease of the mine in question transferred in his name. It was further stated that the petitioner, while taking undue advantage of his terms and relations with the respondent no.1's family, got the mine in question transferred in his (petitioner's) name.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the possession of the mine in question was indisputably settled, and the petitioner is doing mining work for last almost 50 years. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court is not justified in law.