JUDGMENT 1. This is a second appeal of an unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts- below in a suit for permanent injunction. 2. Before this court in this second appeal, the only point argued by Shri J.K. Singhi, the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff is that since the plaintiff did not execute a lease deed after the mining lease was ordered to be renewed on enhanced dead rent, the respondents-defendants cannot realise the dead rent. It is conceded that the order of the renewel was passed on 27th July, 1964 on enhanced dead rent and the plaintiff appellant continued to excavate the mines atleast upto 31st May, 1965 as per the appellant, himself, though the case of the respondents is that this date is earlier and continued afterwards, also. 3. Be that as it may, when the appellant plaintiff got the work of excavation done at the mines after the renewal was sanctioned by the competent authority and in the order of the renewal the increased dead rent was made condition precedent, the plaintiff-appellant cannot be now allowed to take a somersault after taking an advantage of excavation of the minerals; to challenge the validity of the enhanced dead rent, and to argue that he would not like to avail of the renewal on enhanced dead rent. The above is against law and equity. In any case, there is no error of law in the judgment of both the courts- below. 4. Another submission made by Shri Singhi that the plaintiff was trespasser, is a submission which is contradictory to his own earlier stand that he excavated the minerals after getting the proper sanction for renewal and further filed an appeal against the enhanced dead rent. I am convinced that this submission also cannot be accepted. No other point was pressed before me. 5. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed with costs. *******