LAKSHMIKANTHAN Vs. THIRUVENGADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O.S.No.953 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif, Poonamailee, have filed the Second Appeal No.2070 1986 against the judgment in A.S.No.34 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate Poonamailee, in which the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for permanent injunction. In S.A.No.2071 of 1986, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.335 1981 on the file of the same court have filed the second appeal against the judgment A.S.No.23 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Poonamailee in which the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiffs case in O.S.No.335 of 1981 are briefly as follows: Venugopal and the first defendant are brothers. THE second defendant is the daughter Venugopal. THE suit lands belonged to their family. One Jayarama Pillai was the tenant these lands, prior to 1961. After 1961, the plaintiffs family were cultivating the lands tenants. In February, 1981, defendants 1 and 2 sent for the plaintiffs and required him surrender possession. Plaintiffs did not agree. While so, the third defendant is giving out he had negotiated purchase of the land and required the plaintiff to surrender the after harvesting the groundnut crop. THE plaintiffs protested to this demand. THEy entitled to maintain their possession as long as the contractual tenancy subsists. THEy entitled to the rights under the Cultivating Tenants" Protection Act. THE plaintiffs and members of their family contribute physical labour in the cultivation of suit lands. Plaintiffs apprehend that defendants would forcibly enter into the lands after harvest of the groundnut crops now standing on the land. Hence the suit for injunction. Subsequently plaint amended. THE allegations in the amended portion of the plaint are briefly as follows: Pending suit, the third defendant, with the help of his brother Thiruvengadam, the defendant, had trespassed into the suit properties and planted casuarina. Hence alternative relief of possession is also prayed for.

(3.) THE fourth defendant resists the claim on the following grounds: Jayarama Pillai was never cultivating tenant of the suit lands. THE plaintiffs were never possession of the suit lands. THE suit lands originally belonged to Venugopal. On his death, the second defendant became the absolute owner. By agreement dated 26.2.1981, second defendant entered into agreement of sale with defendants 3 and 4 to convey the lands for Rs.83,100 and received an advance of Rs.10,000. Prior to the said agreement, second defendant got back possession from the first defendant on 26.12.1980. On the of agreement of sale, the second defendant delivered possession to defendants 3 and THEy purchased it under registered sale deed dated 15.4.1981. THE third defendant leased out his portion of the lands to the fourth defendant. This defendant is in possession the entire lands. THE plaintiffs are not cultivating tenants. Civil Court has no right determine that question. Hence the dismissal of the suit is prayed for.