K.SUBRAMANIAN Vs. KALAVATHY SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.21 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Madurai Taluk are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit was for permanent injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal by the contesting defendants, the first appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the suit by allowing the appeal. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds. He submitted that the suit property belonged to the third defendant/P.R.Subramanian. However, one Koolu @ Karuppannan was the cultivating tenant. He had three sons namely, K.Subramaniam, Selvaraj and Alagumuthu. In a partition that took place among the family members, the suit property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff/K.Subramaniam. The plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and his name was also entered in the record of tenancy rights. Selvaraj was the plaintiff's brother and Kalavathy was the daughter of Selvaraj. Kalavathy attempted to enter her name in the record of tenancy rights in respect of the suit property by substituting the name of the plaintiff/K.Subramaniam. Her application was dismissed and the appellate authority only remanded the matter. As on the date of filing of the suit, the name of the plaintiff alone was reflected in the tenancy register. After filing the suit, K.Subramaniam passed away and his legal representatives were brought on record. His wife examined herself as P.W.1. Three other witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiffs. Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. The trial Court after a consideration of all the exhibits marked by the plaintiffs rightly decreed the suit. The specific finding of the trial Court was that the plaintiffs have proved their possession over the suit property. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the first appellate Court erred in relying on Exs.B3 and B4. According to the contesting defendants, under these two documents, the original plaintiff had conveyed his tenancy rights over the suit property in favour of Kalavathy. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that both these documents are compulsorily registrable but have not been registered. Therefore, they are inadmissible in evidence. If these two documents are eschewed out of consideration, there is nothing on record to show that the contesting defendants have possession over the suit property. In any event, the fact that the name of the original plaintiff figures in the tenancy register and that the contesting defendants could not displace the same is sufficient to sustain the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. He called upon this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and restore the decision of the trial Court.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that the impugned judgment and decree do not warrant any interference.