VEERAPPA PADAYACHI Vs. VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED over the judgment of the learned Subordinate judge, Myladuthurai , rejecting the defence plea put forth by the appellant herein, who suffered a decree in the hands of the learned District Munsif , Myladuthurai in O. S. NO. 51/2000 in a suit filed by the respondent, seeking for recovery of possession and mesne profits, has brought forth this appeal.

(2.) THE respondents 1 to 3 as plaintiffs filed a suit seeking the said reliefs by stating that the suit mentioned landed property belonged to them; that first plaintiff is a resident of Chennai, whereas the second plaintiff is married and living at Nannilam , and the first defendant was appointed as Kariasthar to look after the properties; that the first plaintiff went to his pannailands house, and he was informed that the lock of the house was broken open and the first defendant has fixed another lock. Plaintiffs lodged a complaint before the concerned police and despite, their objections, the first defendant has raised crops in the suit land. Under the circumstances, their arose a necessity for filing a suit for recovery of possession since the first defendant was neither a tenant nor a lease holder.

(3.) IT has to be pointed out that the first defendant did not claim title to the property but he claimed that he was a cultivating tenant. Unfortunately, he could not substantiate the said claim by any documentary evidence. Had it been true that he was a cultivating tenant for decades, he should have been in possession of documentary evidence. But in the instant case, he did not possess any document at all. The only document marked before the lower court is Ex. B2, a letter and a reading of the same would go to show that the same would not give him right to claim as a cultivating tenant because it was a communication between the parties.