ARUMUGAM Vs. DHARMAPURAM MUTT AT DHARMAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Sirkali dated 27. 11. 1980 in O. S. NO. 95 of 1977.

(2.) THE suit O. S. No. 95 of 1977 was filed by the respondent mutt praying for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit, properties by the plaintiff, and in the alternative if it is found by the Court that the plaintiff was not in possession on the date of the suit for recovery of possession. THE claim of the plaintiff in substance was that the suit properties have not been leased out to anyone and the defendants were not in possession of the suit properties as tenants much less cultivating tenants. THE defendants have filed a written statement and it was contended that the suit properties have been let out to the first defendant's father for planting and rearing fruit bearing trees and also cultivation of dry crops, that the first defendant's father had planted and raised tamarind and mango trees besides chillies and other Vegetable crops and has been taking the profits for himself, that the tenancy started in the year 1935 and the rent was fixed at Rs. 6/- per annum and that the rent was being paid by serving the mutt works in the suit village and the same was never paid in cash till the death of the defendant's father. It is claimed that after the death of the father, the first defendant is continuing in the tenancy by holding over the same. On this nature of pleadings, the suit was tried and the trial Court merely finding that the defendants were in possession and that they were also cultivating the suit properties by their own physical labour, came to the conclusion that the first defendant is a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit property and, therefore, dismissed the suit.

(3.) AS per the decision of the lower appellate Court on the merits of the claim and the grievance made on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court contained in T. D. Gopalan vs. The Commissioner of Hindu religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras (Supra), I am of the view that the grievance is not well merited and does not deserve to be countenanced. The supreme Court has declared while dealing with the duty of an appellate Court to deal with the reasons given by the trial Court in rejecting the testimony of witnesses that if the trial Court has given cogent and detailed reasons for not accepting the testimony of the witness, the appellate Court in all fairness to it ought to deal with those reasons before proceedings to form a contrary opinion about accepting the testimony which has been rejected by the trial court. AS a matter of general principle, there can be no dispute over the said decision of law. But in my view the lower appellate Court cannot be said to have violated such statement of law declared by the Supreme Court on the facts and circumstances of the case. Apart from the fact that the lower appellate court has given cogent and convincing reasons, it has appreciated the evidence as it ought to and as it also deserve unlike the trial Court and I cannot find any patent error of law or perversity or approach in the manner of analysis or method of appreciation of the evidence on record by the lower appellate Court. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court to warrant interfrtence in this appeal. The Second appeal, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs.