MAHALAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. V. SWAMINATHA IYER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of the suit land with profits is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff purchased the suit property in Court auction in execution of a decree in Small Cause Suit No. 371 of 1956, on the file of the District Munsif, Thanjavur. She obtained the sale certificate, Exhibit A -l on 10th July, 1958, and delivery was effected under Exhibit A -2 on 14th September, 1958. According to the plaintiff, she obtained delivery of possession of the property with the standing crops. The fourth defendant was in possession of the land as the lessee of the first defendant judgment -debtor. He agreed to execute a lease deed but later refused to do so. The plaintiff applied to the Rent Court, Kumbakonam, for fixing a fair rent. The fourth defendant contended before the Rent Court that he was not entitled to the benefits of the Fair Rent Act, as he was cultivating more than the extent permitted under the Act. The plaintiff did not press the fair rent application, but issued a notice Exhibit A -4 to defendants 1 and 4 demanding the lease amount due to her. Defendants 1 and 4 issued a joint notice Exhibit A -5.

(2.) BOTH the defendants denied the title of the plaintiff to the suit property. It was contended by them that the Court sale in favour of the plaintiff was nominal and that the plaintiff could not claim any right to or enjoyment in the property. As the fourth defendant denied title of the plaintiff and his liability to pay any rent, the plaintiff filed this suit against defendants 1 and 4 for possession and past profits before the District Munsif, Thanjavur.

(3.) ON appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the trial Court that it could not grant a decree for possession, the lower appellate Court confirmed the view of the trial Court that, when once the 4th defendant was found to be a cultivating tenant, the Court was not empowered to evict and that the plaintiff could get her relief only before the Revenue Divisional Officer. This conclusion of the lower appellate Court is challenged in this second appeal.