Vishnudeo Narayan, J.

1. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 4.3.1980 and 15.3.1980 passed in Title Suit No. 37/19 of 1973/1977 by Shri Dharamdas Topno, 1st Additional District Judge, Dhanbad, whereby the said suit was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff-appellant has filed the said suit for declaration of his title and recovery of possession of the Sand Preparation and Washing Plant along with its annexures and fixtures detailed in Schedule B of the plaint situate at Dangi Hill in the district of Dhanbad and in the alternative, a decree for realisation of Rs. 6,15,354.42. The plaintiff-appellant has also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondent from further operating or running the said plants and machineries and or intermeddling with the same and for the sale of the aforesaid machineries as per Schedule B during the pendency of the suit and/or, deposit of the sale proceed in the Court. The plaintiff-appellant has also sought for decree of Rs. 6,96,983.77 as per Schedule A of the plaint along with interest pendente lite.

3. The case of the plaintiff-appellant, in brief, is that the defendant- respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are possessed of a Quartzite Mine at Dangi Hill in the district of Dhanbad by virtue of an agreement dated 27.8.1960 with the Government of Bihar and they carried on mining operation in the said Quartzite Mine in co- partnership under the name and style of Bihar Bengal Minerals and Defendant-respondent No. 1 Stefan Mandal is the managing partner of the said firm and they entered into an agreement with the plaintiff-appellant on 15.2.1965 for supply of Silica sand on terms and conditions expressly set forth in the agreement duly executed between the parties and as per the terms of the agreement aforesaid the defendant-respondent expressly covenanted and undertook to supply to the plaintiff-appellant from the said quarries a monthly quantity of 1000 tonnes of Silica sand @ Rs. 33.50 per tonne or such larger or lesser quantity as the plaintiff-appellant company may intimate to the defendants- respondent from time to time by placing the indents for the same and the Silica sand supplied to the plaintiff-appellant should conform to the size, specification and quantity as stipulated in the agreement and the price was to be paid by the plaintiff-appellant by way of adjustment, in satisfaction pro tonto of defendants-respondent bills each and every month against hiring rent payable by the defendants-respondent to the plaintiff appellant in the manner and in accordance with and the during the subsistence of a hire purchase agreement between the parties as per the agreement executed on 15.2.1965 and the balance of price, if any, after such adjustment in terms of the said agreement was to be paid by the plaintiff-appellant to the defendants-respondent against their bills and after adjustment against the hiring rent provided in the said hire purchase agreement is fully satisfied, the price aforesaid was to be paid by the plaintiff- appellant to the said defendants-respondent against their bills each and every month. It is also alleged that for the purpose of carrying into effect the above sand supply agreement the plaintiff-appellant agreed to supply and erect a sand preparation and washing plant at the work site as per terms of the agreement dated 15.2.1965 and the plaintiff-appellant in pursuance of the said agreement supplied to the defendants-respondent one sand preparation and washing plant and installed the said plant at or near the defendants- respondent stone quarries at Dangi Hill at the cost of Rs. 6,15,354.42. The further case of the plaintiff-appellant is that the plant and machineries as supplied and delivered by the plaintiff-appellant to the defendants-respondent under the hire purchase agreement has been duly put into commission by the defendants-respondent and has been extensively used by them