JAYARAMAN Vs. ESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, dated 01.08.1988 and made in A.S.No.74 of 1986 whereby, the decree and judgment passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Karur in O.S.No.612 of 1984 was set aside.

(2.) RESPONDENT and his father namely, Rangasamy Gounder (now deceased) had instituted original suit for the relief of permanent injunction by stating that the suit properties originally belonged half share each to Narasingaperumal Konar and Rengasamy Konar and both of them had leased out their respective shares to Rengasamy Gounder, who was first plaintiff in the suit, by way of two registration deeds and as per the lease deeds, the first plaintiff should pay a sum of Rs.825/- and also deliver 50 cocoanuts and straw to the value of Rs.10/- per year and the possession also given to the 1st plaintiff from the date of lease and he had paid rent regularly, as cultivating tenant. Defendants 1 and 2 are son of Narasingaperumal Konar and defendants 3 and 4 are sons of Rengasamy Konar. Narasingaperumal Konar died 10 years ago. The 2nd plaintiff is the only son of first plaintiff. As the first plaintiff become aged and he was not able to cultivate the suit lands, the first plaintiff, with full consent and knowledge of the defendants and Narasingaperumal Konar, had subleased the suit lands to his son/2nd plaintiff about 15 years ago and since then, the second plaintiff alone is in possession and enjoyment of the properties, as sub- tenant. The 2nd plaintiff alone contributing his own physical labour and the 2nd plaintiff's name was also recorded as cultivating Tenant in the Record of Tenancy Rights Register. The 2nd plaintiff alone is exclusive possession enjoyment and cultivating the lands, as cultivating tenant and in the 'Adangal Extract', the 2nd plaintiff's name has been entered as Cutivator in respect of the suit properties. The 2nd plaintiff has been raising sugar-cane crops. The defendants are also aware of the above said facts. The first plaintiff has paid the lease amount to the defendants regularly and there is no arrears. When the plaintiffs wanted to make payments towards current lease amount, the defendants refused to receive the same by saying that he should vacate the properties, since they intended to sell the same. The plaintiffs informed that they cannot vacate the suit properties, since they are entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, 25/55. Defendants threatened the plaintiffs that they would be evicted by force and hence, the plaintiffs filed this suit for injunction.

(3.) AS against the above said decree and judgment of the trial Court, the second plaintiff had filed an appeal before the Sub-Court, Karur in A.S.No.74 of 1986 and during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent/2nd plaintiff has filed M.P.No.230 of 1987 to receive three additional documents and the above said petition was allowed on 01.08.1988 and marked the above said documents, as Exs.P9 to P11. After considering the oral and documentary evidence of both sides, the learned first appellate Judge held that, as per the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, the respondent/2nd plaintiff had registered his name as cultivating tenant and the first plaintiff, who is the father of the 2nd plaintiff also died and hence, the second plaintiff, as son of the first plaintiff, having possession of the properties, as cultivating tenant and his possession is lawful possession and therefore, the second plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction and hence, allowed the first appeal and set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court.