SIDDANNA Vs. KAMALABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant in the present second Appeal. He filed a suit for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the land held by him. The case of the plaintiff was that he had taken the suit lands from defendant 1 on lease basis on payment of half crop share as rent and he was consequently put in possession of the suit lands in the year 1963. It was contended that as a result of the lease in his favour he has been in lawful possession of the suit lands, but, the defendants are trying to evict the plaintiff from the suit lands, and therefore, he was entitled to a decree for perpetual injunction.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the defendants. It was contended by them that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant existing between the plaintiff and defendant 1. It was also contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for perpetual injunction.

(3.) The learned trial Judge framed the following two issues: " (1). Does the plaintiff prove his lawful possession of the suit lands on the date of the suit? (2). What order, what decree " ? Holding that the plaintiff was not in lawful possession of the suit lands on the date of the suit, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. It was held that the plaintiff was in physical possession of the suit lands on the date of the suit, but that possession cannot be termed as lawful since under the piovisions of the Hyderabad Tenacy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, the lease claimed by the present appellant was not a valid lease and he was not cultivating the land" as a tenant and therefore he was not entitled to a decree for injunction against respondent 1.