G KARUPPIAH Vs. G PANDIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for an injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. THE suit was decreed by the trial court and the first defendant preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree. THE Appellate Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, with the result that the plaintiff is before this Court now.

(2.) AT the time when the second appeal was admitted, the following question of law is formulated for consideration: ?Whether the Judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated by its overlooking the adangal extracts Exs.A-7 to A-9 while determining the question of possession.?

(3.) COMING to adangal extracts, the learned Appellate Judge simply says that the adangal extracts do not convincingly prove that the lands in question are in possession and cultivation of the plaintiff. I do not know what the lower appellate court means by ?convincingly prove?. In order to prove possession of land and cultivation of land it is the only account maintained by the Revenue Department. Thus, the adangal extract is a statutory register. In the adangal extract maintained by the Revenue Department, after inspection, the name of the plaintiff has been given as the person in enjoyment of the land. To brush aside the same as not proving convincingly the case of the plaintiff, the lower appellate court would be justified only if there are materials to show that it cannot be true. The defendant has not produced any document to show his possession. If really the defendant was in possession, he could have produced the adangal extracts to show his possession. If there are two adangal extracts one showing the plaintiff's possession and the other showing the defendant's enjoyment, perhaps the lower appellate court was justified in rejecting that document produced by the plaintiff. To bolster up the evidence on his side on the aspect of possession and enjoyment, the plaintiff has produced the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector permitting him to transport the paddy from his property. In respect of the very lands, the defendant applied for recording his name as tenant, but failed. The defendant has not produced any document at all to show his possession of the property. The documents produced by the defendant have nothing to do nor anything to say on the aspect of possession.