VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the appellant (who was defendant No. 2 in the suit) has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.02.1995 and 08.03.1995 respectively passed by Shri Azad Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh, Sub -Judge VI. Ranchi in Title Suit No. 147 of 1976 whereby and whereunder the said title suit was decreed in part directing defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs, 25"51,568.16 paise along with interest pendente lite and future @ 6% within three months.
(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent No. 1 had filed Title Suit No. 147 of 1976 on 15.09.1976 against the defendant -appellant and proforma defendant -respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for a declaration that the goods mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint were taken over from the custody of the plaintiff -respondent on 18.09.1973 and 19.09.1973 illegally and without any authority of law and they did not vest in the Central Government and subsequently in the Coal Mines Authority Limited and its successors i.e. defendant -appellant and defendant - respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973 and Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 or any other law and further for realization of Rs. 1568.16 paise being the balance amount of the hire charges up to 17.09.1973 for one dozer and five trucks as per Schedule B of the plaint and also a sum of Rs. 42,65,381/ - as damages as per his Bill No. 8/73, 9/73, 10/73, 11/73, 12/73 and 13/73 of dated 01.07.1976 as per Schedule A, C, D, E. F. G, H and A/1 of the plaint. The case of the plaintiff -respondent, inter alia, is that proforma defendant -respondent No. 7 Karanpura Dewarkhand Colliery Private Limited was the owner of Karanpura Dewarkhand Colliery, P.O. Khelari. District Ranchi prior to the vesting of the Coal Mines under the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 and the plaintiff -respondent entered into a contract with defendant -respondent No. 7 for removal of over burden work in the said colliery and in pursuance to the said contract and for execution thereof the plaintiff -respondent absolutely as an independent Contractor started the work and sent some of his staff, machineries, stores and equipment and from time to time brought diverse stores and machinery in the said colliery for the said contractual work and also constructed two brick built structures with A.C. sheet roofing consisting of nine rooms bathroom and latrine in an area of about 2000 sq. ft, on the land temporarily -provided by defendant -respondent No. 7 in the said colliery for his staffs and stores at his own cost on the verbal understanding that the plaintiff -respondent shall after the completion of the contract either dismantle and remove the said structure or sell the same to the suitable buyers with the consent of defendant -respondent No"" 7 and the plaintiff -respondent had to incur a cost of Rs. 60.000/ - over the construction. The plaintiff -respondent was duly discharging the work as Contractor under the said contract and submitting bills and receiving payments from defendant -respondent No.7. The Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Ordinance, 1973 was promulgated on 30,01.1973 which was subsequently repealed by the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act. 1973 and the management of the said colliery was taken over by the Union of India and it was entrusted to a Government body known as Coal Mines Authority and a custodian was appointed therein. At the time of the promulgation of the said ordinance the plaintiff -respondent had its machinery and equipment in the said colliery as goods brought by the plaintiff -respondent from outside in the said premises for execution of the said contractual work. At that time three trucks belonging to defendant -respondent No. 4 and one truck belonging to the plaintiff - respondent were stationed at Ranchi for registration purposes. The plaintiff -respondent was in many ways linked and connected with defendant - respondent No. 4 and some of the machineries and the equipments which the plaintiff -respondent had brought in the said colliery for execution of the contractual work were taken by the plaintiff -respondent on lease and hire basis from defendant -respondent No. 4, The officers on behalf of the custodian of the said colliery asked from the plaintiff respondent for the letter of contract dated. 17.09.1971 written by defendant -respondent No. 7 to him and the plaintiff -respondent had handed over the said letter on 09.02.1973 to Sheri P.D.N. Sinha, an officer representing the said custodian who took the same and issued a receipt dated 09.02.1973 in respect thereof. it is alleged that at the instance of the said custodian the aforesaid four trucks were illegally seized on 31.01.1973 and were brought from Ranchi to the said colliery and after correspondence and demands these trucks were subsequently released on illegal threat verbally made that those trucks should not be taken out of the said colliery besides the jeep which was being employed by the plaintiff -respondent in the execution of the contract. Since defendant -respondent No. 4 because of the said illegal threat found it difficult to remove the aforesaid three trucks, by an agreement gave the said three trucks to the plaintiff -respondent on hire basis and the plaintiff -respondent began to use the said three trucks in the execution of the said contractual work. The further case of the plaintiff - respondent is that by a letter No. 1284/73, dated 19.02 -1973. the plaintiff - respondent informed the custodian of the said colliery that he, as a Contractor, is willing to continue the said work at the same rate and on same terms and conditions under the new management and the Coal Mines Authority, Government of India. Karanpura Dewarkhand Colliery by a letter dated 24.02.1973 informed the plaintiff -respondent to continue the work on the same terms and conditions in the area demarcated and attached with the said letter proposing certain rates which were duly accepted by the plaintiff -respondent and he resumed the said work and began to execute the said contractual work by implying the said machineries etc. and submitted bills and received payments from the Coal Mines Authority is alleged that Coal Mines Authority was willing to take one H.D. 21A - Allis Chalmer Bull -Doxer 280 H.P. and several trucks from the plaintiff on hire basis and in pursuance of the discussion between them in respect thereof by a letter dated 26.05.1973 of the Colliery Manager of the said colliery the Coal Mines Authority informed the plaintiff that the Coal Mines Authority would like to take from him on hire his dozer @ Rs, 200/ - per working hour and his trucks each @ Rs. 10/ - per trip for a load of 150 cft. solid earth or 200 cft. loose earth and dumping it to a distance of 1500 feet to 2000 feet away and in pursuance thereof the plaintiff -respondent began to gave its four trucks and the dozer on hire to, the Coal Mines Authority in the said colliery and there was also a negotiation in the earlier part of September, 1973 for the enhancement of the hire charges aforesaid and the colliery management finding the proposal reasonable had verbally agreed to give effect to the said increased rates within a short time, is alleged that a truck bearing Registration No. BHN 5106 belonging to defendant -respondent No. 4 was brought by him to the said colliery in the month of July, 1973 and it was kept with the plaintiff -respondent as the same due to the bad monsoon conditions could not be taken to Corba in Madhya Pradesh at the work site of defendant -respondent No. 4 where it was needed but the colliery authority illegally did not allow the said truck to be taken out of the colliery and thus defendant -respondent No. 4 also gave the said truck on hire basis to the plaintiff -respondent who began to use the same in his work and gave the same on hire to the said colliery.
(3.) THE further case of the plaintiff -respondent is that there is nothing in the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Ordinance, 1973 as well as in the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973 to infringe or affect the right, title, interest, ownership and possession of the plaintiff - respondent in its aforesaid machineries, equipments etc. which the plaintiff -respondent as a Contractor was employing in the said colliery in furtherance of the contractual obligation and similarly there is nothing in the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 to infringe the plaintiffs right, title, interest ownership and possession in respect thereof and that is why even after coming into force of the said ordinance and the subsequent two Acts aforesaid the plaintiff -respondent absolutely as an independent Contractor was allowed to work in the colliery as per the contract for removal of the over burden work by employing its machineries and equipments etc. and upon a contract by giving on hire its one dozer and several trucks to the Coal Mines Authority and was making bills upon and receiving payments from the said Coal Mines Authority and the plaintiff -respondents right and title to the said goods were never disputed by the Union of India or by the Coal Mines Authority and the plaintiff - respondent worked as an independent Contractor in the said colliery with his stores, equipments trucks, jeep etc. up to 17.09.1973. It is alleged that Sub - Area Manager, Coal Mines Authority Limited. Government of India, North Karanpura. West Group Dakra, P.O. Khelari, District Ranchi vide his letter No. CMA/NK (W) G/73/10642 -45, dated 18th September, 1973 informed the plaintiff - respondent (hat Coal Mines Authority had decided and taken over the ancillaries and relevant spares engaged by him in the work of over burden removal at Karampura Dewarkhand Colliery under the provisions of the Coal Mines (Taking over of Management) Act, 1973 and Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 and details of the equipments,. ancillaries and spares were mentioned in the said letter and there was an inventory of the goods of the plaintiff -respondent and the machineries, trucks, jeep, dozer, toe scrapper. stores and equipments etc. except sundry items were taken over by the Coal Mines Authorities illegally and in utter erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the said Act and on 19.09.1963 six sundry items belonging to the plaintiff -respondent were also taken over illegally by the Coal Mines Authority and those articles have been detailed in Schedule A of the plaint along with their current market price is alleged that Coal Mines Authority also illegally took possession of the brick built structure with A.C. sheet roofing aforesaid and, thereafter, the Sub -Area Manager aforesaid vide his letter No. CMA/NK(W)G/ 73/10899 -10900 dated 30th September. 1973 also informed the plaintiff -respondent that since 01.05.1973 the equipments referred to in its letter dated 18.09.1973 were in or about said colliery and used for the purpose of the said Coal Mines and they stood vested in the Central Government and, thereafter, in the Coal Mines Authority Limited under Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973. It is alleged that taking over of plaintiff -respondents equipments, machineries etc. as described in Schedule A of the plaint and the claim that the said equipments, machineries etc. had vested with the Central Government and, thereafter to Coal Mines Authority are absolutely illegally without jurisdiction and void db initio and the plaintiff - respondent vide its letter dated 05.10.1973 and 03.11.1973 made strong protest in respect thereof and challenged the said illegal taking over and the illegal claim of vesting of the plaintiffs said equipment and machineries etc. and demanded immediate return thereof and also claimed compensation for the wrongful user of the said equipments and machineries etc. till these goods are returned to it. The plaintiff -respondent also sent seven bills all dated 05.11.1973 claiming compensation but the Sub -Area Manager aforesaid vide theirletterdated22.11.1973and24.01.1974 returning therewith the aforesaid bills informed the plaintiff -respondent that the aforesaid equipments in question stood vested in the Central Government and, thereafter, with the Coal Mines Authority under the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 on and from 01.05.1973 and the question of giving them back or payment of hire charges therefore to the plaintiff -respondent does not arise.;