S GANAPATHY Vs. KUNJAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, made in A.S.No.22/91, whereby the judgment of the trial Court granting a decree in a suit for permanent injunction was reversed.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff, who is the appellant herein, has been cultivating the suit property for the past seven years by contribution of his and his family members' physical labour. He was a tenant of the suit property, which belonged to Samudhayam. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He obtained agricultural loans in the year 1981 . He produced the loan disbursement card. A part of the suit property containing coconut trees, was leased out to one Govindan. A Muchalika was also executed by him. The plaintiff has purchased in 1987 from one G.V.Raghavan his share in the Samudhayam, which is the suit property herein. The document is filed only for collateral purpose thereby approving the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. The first defendant has no right whatsoever over the suit property; but, he attempted to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and to trespass into the suit property, which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit.

(3.) Since the first defendant died during the pendency of the suit, his legal representatives were added as defendants 2 to 5, who prosecuted the defence. The suit was resisted by the defendants stating that it is true that the suit property belonged to the Samudhayam; that 22 pattadars had the respective shares in the property; that the plaintiff was never in possession, enjoyment or in cultivation of the property; that the plaintiff was never a cultivating tenant; that the plaintiff was a carpenter and was eking his livelihood out of his profession; that all the documents filed along with the plaint were created for the purpose of the case; that the plaintiff has filed a petition before the authority in RTR No.50/87, and it is also pending; that the first defendant's father pursuant to the lease entered into, has been cultivating the land and paying 25 Kalam of paddy towards the loan amount; that the first defendant's father died seven years before, and from the time onwards, the first defendant took possession of the same by entering into an agreement with the sharers of the Samudhayam; that the possession of the property has been continuously for a period of 50 years with the family of the defendants; that all the causes of action found in the plaint were only invented for the purpose of the case, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.