(1.) THE suit, out of which the second appeal arises, was filed by the plaintiff/appellant for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering with his possession of the suit property, which is 0.80 cents in Survey No.46/7 in Perugamani Village. THE suit property which originally belonged to one Periyanachi 'Muthiriar was settled in favour of one Thangaiyan son of the plaintiff/appellant on 27th December, 1957. Thangaiyan died. THE plaintiff, as the only legal heir of Thangaiyan, is entitled to the suit property. THE first defendant, claiming to be a cultivating tenant, claimed possession with him and the plaintiff has to, therefore, file this suit.
(2.) THE second defendant,one Manickath-ammal, remained ex parte.
(3.) HAVING found that the court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction, we may advert to the question whether plaintiff is in possession on the date of suit. The trial Court, relying upon the three documents, Exhibits A.1, A.44 and A.45, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession. Exhibit A.1 is the ledger maintained by the Cooperative Society,Thirupparaithurai.At page 172 an entry is found showing a short term loan granted to one Srinivasan, son of Nagan Pandithar, who was said to be in possession of the suit property in the year 1970. The entry does not refer to the Survey No.and the land in which Srinivasa Pandithan was in possession. From this document one cannot conclude that Srinivasa Pandithan was in possession of the suit property in the year 1970. So also Exhibit A.44, the loan application form by Srinivasa Pandithan. Here again, we do not find any Survey No.of the suit property. It has not been shown that Srinivasa Pandithan is cultivating any other land, other than the suit property Exhibit A.45 is the cultivation account in the name, of Srinivasan given by the Karnam. The Karnam has not been examined. The Karnam has not indicated as to when he gave the certificate, though the suit Survey No. is mentioned in it. This document also shows that the lease amount is Rs.450/-.This document also will not advance the case of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the first defendant has filed certain cultivation accounts as Exhibits B.5,B.6, B.13 and B.14.Exhibits B.5 and B.6 would show that the first defendant was cultivating the suit property for faslis 1380 and 1381. Exhibit B.14shows that the first defendant was cultivating the suit property for fasli 1379 also.There is some correction in Exhibit B.13 which is the adangal extract for fasli 1370. Since there is some correction, no reliance can be placed on it. These documents would show that the land was in possession of the defendants The trial Court was of the view that the Karnam, with the collusion of the first defendant, has manipulated the adangal.But P.W.5, son of the plaintiff, has admitted that he came to know about the adangal accounts only after the filing of the suit and that he did not take any steps to correct them. In view of the fact that the first defendant has produced the adangal extracts to show possession with him, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not established his possession on the date of the suit and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit with costs. I do not find any reason to interfere with this finding. The second appeal fails-and is dismsissed, but in the circumstances without costs.Appeal dismissed.