PERUMALSAMY Vs. DEVARAJ AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS in O.S.No.70 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Andipatti are the revision petitioners in both the revision petitions.

(2.) MATERIAL facts which necessitated filing of these revision petitions with broad facts could be summarised thus, Plaint schedule properties admittedly belonged to one Venkitapathy and Damodarasamy of Coimbatore and it is the case of plaintiffs that on the basis of oral agreement with owners, they were cultivating the same. It is their case that they were paying 1/3rd of the income to the landlords as rent and 2/3rd was retained by them as their share. Rent was being paid to landlords till 1985. Proceedings were initiated against owners under Tamil Nadu Land Ceiling Act and therefore owners did not turn up nor did they show interest in receiving rent from petitioners.

(3.) SINCE caveat was entered by respondents, I heard the revision petitions at the admission stage itself.