N RUKMANI AMMAL Vs. JANAKAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of the landed property and a decree for mesne profits, whose defence plea, though accepted by the trial Cour, was rejected by the first appellate forum, has brought forth this second appeal.

(2.) Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for the said reliefs alleging that the suit property originally belonged to Vaidhyanathan and Gnanasekaran, who sold the same to the plaintiff on 7.1.1980; that pursuant to the same, the plaintiff was the owner of the property; that while so, one Ranganathan obtained an ante dated sale deed from Vaidhyanathan and Gnanasekaran; that thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1543/82 before the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, for declaration and permanent injunction and in the alternative, for recovery of possession; that in respect of recovery of possession, the suit was dismissed; that on appeal the said judgment was reversed by the appellate forum; that in the said suit, it was found that the defendant herein was a tenant; that the petition submitted by the defendant before the authorities for recording her as a cultivating tenant was rejected; that the defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.784/83 against the plaintiff and others for damages, and the same was dismissed; that there was no appeal against the said judgment; that the plaintiff issued a notice on 21.10.1990 to the defendant, stating that the defendant has not paid the lease amounts, and the lease period was for five years, and it also ended by 5.4.1982, and thus, the defendant should surrender possession; and that the defendant cannot get benefit under Act 38 of 1990.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant stating that since the defendant was a cultivating tenant, the suit itself was not maintainable; that the defendant was recorded as a cultivating tenant in the record of tenancy; that the suit was hit by res-judicata in view of the judgment in O.S.No.1543/82; that she was entitled to protection under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act; that she was ready to remit the lease amounts to the plaintiff; that O.S.No.784/83 has no connection to the instant suit, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.