Forest law / Reserve Forest — Defendants pleaded that suit schedule property is part of Madhavaram Reserve Forest (compartments Nos.724, 725 & 726) and alleged illegal mining and trespass; seized machinery and minerals and instituted U.D.O.R. No.02/2012/13 — Despite pleas, defendants did not lead evidence to substantiate defence; plea of reserve-forest status and non-compliance with Forest Conservation Act not established on record.

Civil Procedure Code — S.100 — Second Appeal — Substantial question of law — Concurrent findings of fact — Admissibility — Where evidence of plaintiff (P.W.1) remained unchallenged and documentary evidence Exs.A.1 to A.24 proved execution of registered lease deed and possession by plaintiff pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 25.02.2012 for mining lease of plaint-schedule land, and defendants failed to adduce any evidence though specific pleas were pleaded in written statement, concurrent findings recorded by trial and first appellate Courts do not admit interference in second appeal — No substantial question of law arises — Second appeal dismissed at stage of admission.

Mining Law / Government Orders — G.O.Ms.No.48, dt.25.02.2012 — Grant of mining lease — Assistant Director of Mines and Geology executed registered lease deed dated 03.05.2012 and granted mining work orders — Plaintiff carried out mining activities and incurred expenditure — Plaintiff entitled to protection of possession.

Injunction — Permanent injunction — Suit for permanent injunction restraining Government authorities (Divisional Forest Officer and Forest Range Officer), their men, agents, successors-in-office and subordinates from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of mining activities on plaint-schedule land — Trial Court granted permanent injunction; first appellate Court confirmed decree — Concurrent findings of possession and entitlement to injunction sustained.

Forest law / Reserve Forest — Defendants pleaded that suit schedule property is part of Madhavaram Reserve Forest (compartments Nos.724, 725 & 726) and alleged illegal mining and trespass; seized machinery and minerals and instituted U.D.O.R. No.02/2012/13 — Despite pleas, defendants did not lead evidence to substantiate defence; plea of reserve-forest status and non-compliance with Forest Conservation Act not established on record.

Procedure — Section 80 CPC — Notice to Government — Defendants did not raise plea of non-issuance of notice under S.80 CPC in written statement or before first appellate Court; contention raised for first time in second appeal and not supported by evidence — No impediment to maintain suit where section 80(1) notice was dispensed with by Court under S.80(2) application filed by plaintiff.

Evidence — Burden / failure to cross-examine — Where defendants did not cross-examine the plaintiff witness and did not lead evidence to prove the case pleaded in written statement, presumption arises against defence; unchallenged evidence of plaintiff proves possession by virtue of registered lease deed and warrants protection by injunction.

Held: Concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial and first appellate Courts are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from illegality or irregularity. No substantial question of law arises under S.100 CPC. Second appeal dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, closed.