SENNIAPPA NADAR Vs. T R SAROJINI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant. THE respondents filed O.S. No.505 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Cuddalore for recovery of possession. THE plaint averments are as follows: THE first plaintiff is the wife of the second plaintiff. THE suit property belongs to the second plaintiff. THE second plaintiff leased the right to collect the usufructs of the coconut trees in the suit property to the defendant, on an annual lease amount of Rs.3,100 THE defendant had not paid the lease amount from Karthigai, 1973 and a suit was filed for the recovery of lease amount. THE defendant is only a licensee in respect of the land. THE plaintiff's issued a notice calling upon the defendant to vacate the property and hand over the possession. THE defendant sent a reply with incorrect allegations stating that he is a cultivating tenant. With these averments, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

(2.) THE defendant in his written statement as well as in the additional written statement contended in the following manner: THE entire property was leased, out to this defendant. It is incorrect to state that he is only a licensee in respect of the land. THE defendant raised plantain crop in the suit property. THE lease amount is only Rs.1,000 THEre is no valid termination of the lease. This defendant is a cultivating tenant in respect of the entire property and is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Occupants Kudiyiruppu (Conferment Ownership) Act, 1971. With these averments, the defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) ON the other hand, the defendant himself was examined as D.W. 1 and he has not produced any document to substantiate his defence. The Commissioner's report and the plan were marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2.