( 1. ) THE defendants 1 to 4 in Civil Suit No. 25-A of 1976 appeal against the judgment and decree for Rs. 1,69,052. 00 passed against them and in favour of plaintiff/respondent No. 1. Respondents 2 to 5 were also defendants 5 to 8 in that suit, No decree has been passed against them.

( 2. ) THE respondent/plaintiff Associated Cement Company Ltd. held a mining lease over an extensive area including Khasra No. 325 in village Amehta, Tahsil murwara, District Jabalpur. The appellants also held like lease in respect of the adjoining Khasra No. 326 which is towards south of Khasra No. 325. Adjoining and towards north of Khasra No. 325 is Khasra No. 319. This is held on lease by other respondents, i. e. , respondents 2 to 5. All the parties were engaged in extracting lime stone from various quarries. According to the plaintiff, appellant Ramnaresh Swami (defendant No. 3 in the suit) informed the plaintiffs Manager on spot and complained that respondents 2 to 5 were illegally extracting lime stone on Khasra No. 325 held by the plaintiff. This put the plaintiff to inquiry, the plaintiff got the Khasra measured through the Tahsildar. A revenue survey also took place and yet another survey was done by the Mining Inspector. All this was done between January, 1974 to March 1974. According to the plaintiff, it was found that although lime stone was illegally extracted from Khasra No. 325 the persons responsible for such extraction were the appellants. The suit for recovery of damages was, therefore, initially filed only against the appellants. When the appellants entered appearance and filed their written statement, and tried to throw the blame upon the respondents 2 to 5, they were also joined as defendants and relief was alternatively claimed against them. Quantifying the damages, the plaintiff/respondent alleged that in all 10,546 metric ton lime stone was unlawfully extracted from Khasra No. 325. Calculated at the rate of Rs. 20. 00 per ton, the cost of limestones so extracted comes to Rs. 2,10,920. 00. To this amount was added Rs. 18,204 as sales tax. A total sum of Rs. 41,868. 00 was calculated to be the quarrying cost at the rate of Rs. 3. 97 per ton. After giving deduction for this cost of quarrying, a total amount of Rs. 2,14,431. 00 was claimed in the suit. This amount included interest at 14 1/2 per cent upto the date of the suit. Injunction was also claimed restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the quarry.

( 3. ) ALL the defendants including the appellants, denied the entire claim of the plaintiff. The appellants denied to have made any extraction of limestone from khasra No. 325. They also questioned the quantity of limestone allegedly extracted and also challenged the cost of the material as too high. They also pleaded that the lease in plaintiffs favour is void in terms of Section 6 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (No. 67 of 1957), and rule 31 of the Minerals concession Rules, 1960. It was, therefore, alleged that the plaintiff has acquired no right to quarry and, therefore, could not recover. The other defendants/respondents 2 to 5 totally denied the plaintiffs claim and stated that they were not responsible at all for extracting limestone from Khasra No. 325. At the trial, the parties filed documents and examined witnesses. The trial Court, vide the impugned judgment and decree, held the lease in plaintiffs favour to be valid. It was, however, held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the land out of which limestone was extracted. It is the appellants who extracted the limestone unlawfully. The quantity of limestone extracted as alleged by the plaintiff was accepted. It was also held proved that the price of the limestone so extracted was Rs. 20. 00 per ton. Interest and the amount of sales tax claimed were denied. Other reliefs have also been denied. Only the appellants have been held liable. No liability has been fixed upon responde