Partnership agreement, family settlement, and compliance with statutory provisions can establish entitlement to mining lease rights.

V.K. Ahuja, J.-This is a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, dated 31.12.1994, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, dated 24.3.2000.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 and 2, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction as against respondents No. 3 to 7 and appellants, who were impleaded as defendants respectively. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that one Thakur Sher Singh filed an application for seeking lime stone mining lease from the Government of Himachal Pradesh in regard to the property comprised in Khasra No. 1886/131 measuring 45.1 Bighas. Plaintiff No.1 Anil Kumar Mohil was the son-in-law of said Sher Singh, while plaintiff No. 2 was the nephew and defendants No. 2 to 4 and 6 are the daughters of said said Sher Singh, while defendant No. 5 was alleged to be the widow of Thakur Sher Singh. It was alleged that on 31.3.1986, said Sher Singh had entered into a partnership with the plaintiff in relation to the mining lease and the share of both the partners was 50%. Defendant No. 1 i.e. the State granted lime stone mining lease in favour of said Sher Singh, duly registered on 16.6.1987, entered into in between the said Sher Singh and defendant No. 1/State. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he had also entered into a partnership agreement with the said Sher Singh for the said mining lease rights and as per the family settlement, defendants No. 2 to 6 had relinquished their rights in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff allegedly worked on the mining lease as per the terms of the mining lease and as per the partnership agreement by spending huge money and since the plaintiff was a partner, defendants had no right to withdraw from their position and the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of declaration that he is the lessee to the extent of 50% share as per the agreement and 50% which he had inherited on the death of deceased Sher Singh on the basis of family settlement and he prayed for relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the working of mine by the plaintiffs.

3. Defendants filed detailed written statements taking various objections in regard to locus standi etc. and they denied that the deceased had entered into any partnership with plaintiff No. 1 or that the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief of declaration claimed by them. As many as 18 issues were framed numbering 1 to 14, 14-A to 14-D on the basis of the pleadings of the parries and I do not deem it necessary to reproduce the said issues. Learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, who were declared lessee of the entire mining lease on the basis of family settlement made by defendants No. 2 to 6 and they were also held entitled to consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the rights of the plaintiffs. However, the learned trial Court did not accept the plea of partnership set up by plaintiff No. 1.

4. An appeal was preferred bydefendants No. 2 and 3 i.e. the present appellants. The learned Additional District Judge vide its impugned judgment upheld the findings of learned trial Court and consequently dismissed the appeal. The defendants/appellants No. 1 and 2 have come up by way of present second appeal challenging the findings of both the Courts below.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants were that both the Courts have acted with material illegality and irregularity in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs since the suit was not maintainable. It was also submitted that the learned Courts below have held wrongly that the plaintiffs were entitle