SAMPORNAM Vs. R. SENAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 2 to 4 are the appellants. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the first defendant.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.75 of 1999 seeking the relief of permanent injunction till the plaintiff is evicted by due process of law. The said suit was dismissed. Aggrieved over the dismissal, the plaintiff filed the first appeal in A.S.No.25 of 2003. The First Appeal was allowed and thereby the dismissal in O.S.No.75 of 1999 came to be set aside. Injunction was granted protecting the interest of the plaintiff till he is evicted by due process of law. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed in the first appeal, the defendants 2 to 4 have preferred this second appeal.

(3.) BRIEF Facts:The suit property originally belonged to Akilanda Deekshidar, the husband of the first defendant. As per the Will executed and which came into force later, the property belonged to the first defendant. The plaintiff, as a lessee, executed a lease deed on 10.06.1977 for a period of 11 months. This lease deed was attested by a notary public, who was a lawyer. The plaintiff is personally cultivating the suit property by exerting his own physical labour. Even after the expiry of the lease period mentioned in the lease deed, he continued to be in possession as a tenant holding over. He is entitled to protection under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act.