Question of possession and question of extraction of granites are different

This revision is by the defendant in O.S. No.278 of 1994, on the file of District Munsif s Court, Tindivanam.

2. The suit filed by the respondents herein as plaintiffs is one for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, petitioner herein, from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties either by themselves or by their representatives or successors-in- title or by anyone claiming through him till 110. 2002; for costs of suit; and for other reliefs.

3. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 1004 of 1994 for an interim injunction. The material averments in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition are, that the first plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated under Companies Act 1956. Its Certificate of Incorporation is No. 18-17521 of 1989, on the file of Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, and the same was registered on 6. 1989. The main objects to be pursued by the plaintiffs are said to be many, and, according to the plaintiffs, the foremost object was to have quarry operations by acquiring lights over lands which contain deposits of granite. The business of the company is buying, selling and exporting granites by quarrying the same. It is said that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit properties, and he approached the plaintiffs with an offer of lease for the purposes of exploiting those lands. Pursuant to the same, exploitation rights have been given to the first plaintiff- company represented by the second plaintiff in respect of the suit lands by duly executed document dated 20.10.1992. By the said arrangement, the plaintiffs are entitled to exploit granite deposits in the suit lands for a period often years from 20.10.1992, with an option to renew the same. An advance of Rs.7 lakhs was paid and the same is identified in the document dated 20.10.1992 also. In view of the exploitation of the deposits by the plaintiffs, Rs.10,000 per cubic metre has to be paid to the defendant whenever granite is quarried by 1st plaintiff. It is said that possession of the suit lands was also vested with the plaintiffs by the arrangement dated 20.10.1992, and the plaintiffs took possession of the lands and commenced several activities of quarrying the suit lands. It is said that the plaintiffs, respondents herein, by exploiting the quarry have further settled by way of supply of granite worth Rs.4,90,000 to one Swastik Enterprises, Madras to whom the defendant, through his proprietory concern, had financial commitments to pay the same. It is also said that the defendant received from plaintiffs Rs.20 lakhs. It is further said that subsequent to taking possession, the plaintiffs had their overseas commitments, and the contract of purchase has been entered into with foreign buyers for the export of black granite from suit lands. It is stated that the documents produced along with the plaint will show that the plaintiff has acted on the agreement. It is said that the respondents (plaintiffs) have also paid sales-tax to the Government and statutory authorities for movement of blocks from the quarry to the Harbour. The petitioner also gave Letters of Authority to plaintiffs under his trade concern name ‘Meena Granite Industries’ of which he is the proprietor, authorising the plaintiffs to act and represent the defendant before public authorities as well as in respect of various activities concerning the exploitation of granites by plaintiffs, respondents herein. It is said that persons inimically disposed towards the plaintiffs, have approached the defendant to act contrary to the trade interest of the plaintiffs, and, as a result of that, the defendant, petitioner herein, has completely changed his attitude and is creating various disturbances to the plaintiffs in the smooth exploitation of suit lands. It is further stated that the petitioner herein has started acting against the interest of the respondents herein from 14. 1994 by joining