P M NANJAPPAN Vs. S RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendants are the appellants in the Second Appeal.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for injunction stating that the property was owned by one Natarajan and in the year 1964, he leased out the property to the plaintiff on an yearly rent of Rs.2,100/- and the said Natarajan, settled the property in favour of the appellants in the year 1966. THEreafter, the respondent/plaintiff was a tenant under the appellants/defendants and was paying the rent and the respondent/ plaintiff has also spent Rs.40,000/- for the purpose of deepening the well and he is paying the electricity consumption charges. As the appellants/defendants threatened the respondent/plaintiff to vacate and handover the possession and the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction

(3.) BOTH the Courts below have held that the respondent/ plaintiff is a cultivating tenant in respect of the entire property and the appellants/defendants have not proved the partition between the respondent/ plaintiff and his brother Maylsamy and the document viz., Ex.B18, the alleged surrendered deed cannot be received in evidence and it was also not proved to be executed by Mayilsamy, by examining proper persons. Hence, this Second Appeal is filed