PANKAJAM Vs. CHINLIASWAMY NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 to 3 in 0. S. No. 191 of 1975, District Munsif's Court, Tiruppur, are the appellants in this second appeal, That suit was laid by the respondent herein praying for a declaration of his right to enjoy the suit properties as a cultivating tenant and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants and others from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties and other, incidental reliefs. Admittedly, the suit properties belonged to one Ranganayaki Ammal, after whose death the appellants became entitled to them. The respondent claimed that his father Rangaswami Naidu was a lessee of the suit properties till about 21 years prior to the filing of the suit and that on his death, he became the tenant under the owner Rauganayaki Ammal about 21 years ago on an annual rent of Rs. 1,000.00, which was subsequently raised to Rs. 1,300.00, in 1965 and again to Rs. 1,500.00 in .1.971. Claiming that he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for over 21 years as a tenant and that his name also found a place in the cultivation account and stating that there was a demand by the appellants calling upon, him to surrender possession of the Properties and owing to his refusal to do so, the appellants were enraged, and were attempting to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the properties, the respondent laid the suit for the relief's set out earlier.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the third appellant, which was adopted by the appellants I and 2, while admitting the claim of the respondent that be was a lessee of the suit properties up to Chitrai 1974, they pleaded relinquishment of tenancy rights by the respondent over the suit properties and surrender of possession to the appellants in or about Chitrai 1974. Subsequent to the surrender, according to the appellants, the properties had been leased out from Chitrai 1974 onwards to one Arumugha 'Gounder, who is the tenant of the suit Properties. The suit was characterised by the appellants as a counter blast to the demand for arrears of rent made by the appellants. The appellants also disputed the entries in the cultivation accounts relied on by the respondent and stated that the entries had been made falsely taking advantage' of the enmity between the appellants and the Karnam of the village. The threat to interfere with the respondent's possession of the properties by the appellants was denied. It was the further plea of the appellants that there was no cause of action at all for the respondents to institute the suit. On these grounds, the appellants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) Before the learned District Munsif, Tiruppur, on behalf of the respondents Exts. Al to A5 were marked and the 'respondent was examined as P. W. 1, while, on behalf of the appellants their Manager was examined as D. W. 1. Placing reliance upon, the order passed by the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act), and also the entries in the Adangal and some other letters, the learned District Munsif found that the respondent has established that he is a, cultivating tenant i.e, Possession , of the Properties and that -the case of surrender 'of the properties by the respondent get up, by the appellants was not made out. In that view, a decree was granted in favour of the respondent declaring that be-has right to enjoy the suit properties as a cultivating tenant and also granting an injunction in. his favour restraining the appellants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Aggrieved by this, the appellants preferred an appeal in A. S. 140 of 1977 before the 11 Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. Before the lower appellate Court, the appellants filed 1. A. 295 of 1978 to receive as additional evidence the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pollachi, setting aside the order recording the respondent as a cultivating tenant. In turn, the respondent filed I. A. 318 of 1978 for reception of an order Passed by the record of Tenancy Tahsildar after remand recording the respondent as a cultivating tenant, as additional evidence in the appeal. Both the applications were allowed and the order passed by the Record of Tenancy Tahsildar recording the respondent as a cultivating tenant was marked as Ext. A6, while the documents filed by the appellants in 1. A. 295 of 108 were exhibited as Exts. BI and B2. Adverting to the documentary evidence, the lower appellate Court took the view that Ext. Al the earlier order upon which reliance was placed by the respondent to establish his status as a cultivating tenant bad been passed without notice to the appellants and that order had also been set aside on appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer and, therefore, no reliance could be placed 011 that. Referring to the order Ext. A6 relied upon by the respondent recording him as a cultivating tenant, the lower appellate Court found That that order bad not become final as there was every possibility of an appeal being preferred against that order. Section 16-A of the Act was relied upon by the Court below as prohibiting Civil Courts from granting a declaration in. respect of the rights of tenancy, as such matters could be decided only by the authorities constituted under the Act. In that view, the Civil Court's jurisdiction was held to be barred with reference to the relief of declaration prayed for by the respondent. However, regarding the relief of injunction, relying upon the decision in Palaniswamy v. Rarnaswami Gounder, 1977-1 Mad LJ (short notes) 5, the lower appellate Court maintained the decree of the trial Court, granting the relief Of injunction in favour of the. respondent. In the result, the appeal Preferred by the appellants was allowed in part add to the declaration granted by the trial Court in favour of the respondent was deleted. It is the correctness of this that is challenged by the appellants in this second appeal.