SUBBIAH NADAR Vs. NALLAPERUMAL PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 472 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsif Court. Tuticorin, is the appellant herein. He filed the suit for a declaration that he is the cultivating tenant in respect of the suit properties and for an injunction restraining the defendants, from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same. His case was that the suit properties originally belonged to one Nallaperumal, who died leaving two sons, Chinnakannu Pillai and Sundaram Pillai that the suit properties came to be allotted to the share of Chinnakannu Pillai, that after his death his sons the defendants 1 to 4 became owners of the same that he is a cultivating tenant of the suit properties although for the last 40 years since the time of Nallaperumal Pillai, that defendants 1 to 4 with the assistance of defendants 5 and 6 are trying to evict him from the suit lands by force and, that therefore, he was constrained to file the suit for the relief's set out above.

(2.) IT was contended by defendants 1 to 4 that the plaintiff was a lessee under nallaperumal Pillai and thereafter under their father, that subsequently he became a tenant under them, that the lease being annual was renewed year after year, that on expiry of the lease in Adi 1967 the plaintiff surrendered possession of the lands, and that, thereafter the 4th and 5th schedule lands had been leased out to the 5th defendant. They also denies that the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant. They also alleged that the plaintiff is a rich man owning houses worth more than one lakh of rupees and a costly car and that he is the President of a Panchayat and also doing other business. The 5th defendant filed a written statement supporting defendants 1 to 4 and contending that the plaintiff surrendered the suit properties in Adi 1967 and thereafter the 4th and 5th schedule lands had been given to him on lease by defendants 1 to 4. The 6th defendant also contended that the plaintiff surrendered possession of the suit lands to defendants 1 to 4 and as their servant he is supervising the cultivation of the lands.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed a reply statement disputing that he ever surrendered possession of the suit lands to defendants 1 to 4 at any time and that the alleged lease in favor of the fifth defendant of schedule 4 and 5 lands was not true.