NARASIMMA NAICKER Vs. SANJEEVIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in the suit before the trial court has preferred the second appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, namely, the court of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet dated 30.03.2004 made in A.S. No. 65 of 2003, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 22.09.2003 made in O.S. No. 360 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholingur. The suit was originally filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein against the appellant herein, for a declaration of title to their suit property and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property, which are agricultural lands measuring about 4.5 acres belongs to the first respondent and her husband. Since the first defendant has trespassed into the property during the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiffs had amended the plaint and sought for recovery of possession. In the said suit, the second respondent is the 2nd plaintiff and the other plaintiffs are his mother and brothers. The first defendant is none other than the father-in-law of the 2nd plaintiff.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the appellant/first defendant based on the contention that he is in possession of the suit property as cultivating tenant, which has been proved by the letters sent by the husband of the first respondent to the appellant, in Ex. B20 and B21. However, the title of the plaintiffs are not denied by the defendants. It is the further contention of the appellant/first defendant that the kist receipts in Ex. B23 to B52 shows that the kist were paid by the father of the appellant. Thus, the appellant/first defendant had clinching proof to establish his status as a cultivating tenancy through oral and documentary evidences. It was also the contention of the appellant/first defendant that the amended prayer for recovery of the suit would clearly prove that the respondents/plaintiffs were in Chennai and was not in possession of the suit property. Hence, it is further claimed that he can be evicted only under the common civil law i.e. by the Revenue Court constituted under the Tamilnadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955.

(3.) The trial court at the conclusion of trial, on appreciation of evidences, rendered a finding that as the owners of the property the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession of the property and hence the suit was decreed on 22.09.2003 as prayed for. Challenging the said decree of the trial court, the appellant/first defendant preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court in A.S. No. 65 of 2003. The learned first Appellate judge on re-appreciation of evidence, concurred with the findings of the trial court and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court in all respects by dismissing the appeal by its judgment and decree dated 30.03.2004. Challenging the same, the present second appeal has been filed.