ARULMIGHU SWAMINATHASWAMY DEVASTHANAM AT SWAMIMALAI Vs. JAGANNATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant/ devasthanam in the suit is the appellant herein. THE respondent filed the suit O.S.No.650 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Kumbakonam for bare injunction stating that on 31.3.1969 he entered into a lease agreement in respect of the suit property and pursuant to which he has to covert the land into a coconut thope and thereafter surrender possession to the defendant Devasthanam. THE lease period is five years. THE respondent can cultivate intermediary crops and pay a sum of Rs.1,800 by way of annual lease to the appellant Devasthanam. As per the said agreement, the respondent planted 600 coconut saplings of which 571 are new well grown trees. THE number of yielding trees are only 151. Even though the lease period agreed upon was five years, the respondent continued to be lessee till the date of filing of the suit and he has also paid the lease amount regularly without any arrears. While so, the appellant Devasthanam brought the thope for auction on 9.7.1981. Hence, the suit has been filed for a bare injunction as the respondent incurred an expense of Rs.10,000 for the installation of pumpset and another Rs.10,000 for the construction of shed thereon. Along with these amounts, the appellant Devasthanam has to pay a sum of Rs.10 per tree towards maintenance.

(2.) THE appellant herein contested the claim of the respondent by filing written statement stating that the agreement is only for planting the coconut trees to yield the respondent has to receive the compensation and surrender possession. Even though the lease period expired on 30.6.1973, it was extended for further period of three years and again for further period of five years and as such the lease period came to an end on 30.6.1981. Since the lease period expired, the appellant Devasthanam is entitled to auction the right to take the usufructs. Hence, the suit is not maintainable.

(3.) ON the contrary, on behalf of the respondent, it is contended that the respondent is entitled for the benefit of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act; especially when there is already an order in his favour under the Record of Tenancy Act that the respondent is the cultivating tenant. The appellants allowed the said order of the Record of Tenancy Tahsildar to stand, it is not open to them now to contend that the respondent is not entitled for the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. In view of the same, the cross-objection filed by the respondent has to be allowed and consequently the second appeal has to be dismissed.