GANGADHARAN PILLAI Vs. NAGENDRA PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs who are two in number are the appellants. THE suit is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon the plaint schedule property. THE property belongs to the defendants. It 19 Punja land, about 33 acres in extent. THE plaintiffs' case is that they were cultivating the properties as lessees from 1123 onwards. THE harvest of the year 1126 was taken in the month of Kumbhom that year. After that the plaintiffs did the preliminary agricultural operations for the crop of 1127 and spent Rs. 750/- and 500 paras of paddy for that purpose. THE defendants attempted to take forcible possession of the property from the plaintiffs and therefore they filed the suit for the relief mentioned above, It was also alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs had effected improvements in the property of the value of Rs. 2500 and that the defendants had agreed to pay that amount at the time of eviction. It was further alleged that the defendants had received some amount as advanced pattern for the year 1127. THE amount was, however, not mentioned in the plaint.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by the defendants they contended that the property was leased to the plaintiffs only for the cultivation of 1126, that after the harvest of 1126 was taken the property was surrendered to the defendants and that they conducted agricultural operations for the crop of 1127. They denied the allegation that the plaintiffs had effected improvements in the property and that the defendants had agreed to give the value thereof. The allegation that some amount has been paid to the defendants as advance pattom for 1127 was also denied. They contended that they were in possession of the property and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief claimed in the plaint. IN the replication filed by the plaintiffs they reiterated the allegations in the plaint and denied that they surrendered the property to the defendants after the harvest of 1126.

(3.) IN the appeal filed by the defendants from this decision the learned District Judge reversed the finding of the Munsiff relating to the possession of the property on the date of suit The learned judge held that the defendants were in possession of the property on the date of the suit. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the defendants relating to the possession of the property was believed by the learned Judge he, therefore, held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to an injunction restraining the defendants from entering into possession of the property and dismissed the suit with costs.