MUTHUSWAMIGOUNDER Vs. NARAYANASWAMYNAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the record with the assistance of the counsel. There is no dispute that originally out of the total land of 26 acres and 72 cents, 6 acres and 36 cents were leased out to the appellant by the respondent-landlord for one year under a deed dated 17/9/1963. The lease was renewed for a period of three years under a registered deed. Although the lease period expired the appellant-tenant continued to be on the entire land. It is further not disputed that both these documents mentioned that the appellant was only to be a watchman in respect of the rest of the land, viz. , 20 acres and 36 cents in which coconut trees were planted and he had no right even to take the coconuts from the said trees.

(2.) The notification under Section 3 (5 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 was published on 17/6/1972 in respect of the village in which the suit lands are situated. It appears that the appellant- tenant got himself recorded as a tenant in respect of the entire land of 26 acres and 72 cents. The respondent-landlord tried to challenge it on the ground that in respect of the balance of 20 acres and 36 cents, the appellant was not a tenant inasmuch as he was not cultivating the land and he was only a watchman. But the challenge was delayed. Hence he filed a suit. It appears that the appellant had also filed a suit earlier against the landlord for a permanent injunction restraining him from disturbing his possession of the land. Both the suits came to be heard together and the trial court found that the authorities under the Act had no jurisdiction to register the appellant as a tenant over the 20 acres and 36 cents of land inasmuch as no operation either of agriculture or horticulture was carried on by him there and the appellant was only a watchman, and since 1973 he was a trespasser. This finding came to be confirmed by the first appellate court and subsequently in second appeal by the High court. It is this finding which is challenged before us.

(3.) After going through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel we are of the view that this finding of fact is unassailable. No doubt it was urged on behalf of the appellant that once he was recorded as a tenant under the Act, the said record had become final and in view of Section 16-A of the Act the finding could not be challenged in the civil court. We are afraid that thisargument is not well placed. The authorities under the Act have jurisdiction to record tenancy only in respect of the land which is used for agriculture or a horticulture within the meaning of the said Act. On the finding recorded by the courts below that the appellant was doing neither agriculture nor horticulture and was only a watchman, the entry recorded under the Act is non est. Hence we dismiss the appeals with costs.