THANGAMANI AMMAL Vs. PONNUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C R.P. No.1240 of 1986 arises from A.S. No.252 of 1983 on the file of District judge, Trichy which arose from the judgment and decree in O.S. No 71 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Trichy. Second Appeal No. 1058 of 1985 arises from O.S No.503 of 1981 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Trichy which gave rise to an appeal viz., A S. No.174 of 1983 of District Judge, Trichy. There is also another suit which is of small cause in nature viz., S.C. No.436 of 1979. All the above three suits were tried together and common judgment was pronounced on 28.2.1983. Against this Small Cause Suit No.436 of 1979, there was a revision before the District Court as C.R.P.No. 9 of 1984. In all the three suits a common question arose between the parties who are the same. The plaintiff sought recovery of damages from the defendants, on the allegation that he is cultivating the land against the terms of the lease agreement. The material averments for instituting all these suits may be stated as follows.

(2.) THE property belonged to plaintiffs predecessor and there was a lease to the defendants predecessor. THEre was a dispute between the parties, and the plaintiffs predecessors moved the revenue court for recovery of property. THE entire land which is the subject matter of the lease was 3 acres 44 cents before the revenue court. Plaintiffs predecessor wanted recovery of one half of the property and the same was allowed. THE balance area could not be properly cultivated and therefore a compromise was entered into between, the parties thereon and the defendants predecessor agreed to pay rent of Rs.600 p.m. for about 1.08 acres of land comprised in Survey No. 126/2. THE compromise was produced in this case as Ex.B-3 and the same was not registered. THE lease was tor a term of five years and therefore a contention was taken before the lower appellate court that Ex. B-3 is inadmissible for any purpose since it is an unregistered document. THE lower appellate court accepted the contention and held Ex.B-3 cannot be looked into for any purpose including collateral purpose.

(3.) AGAINST A.S. No.252 of 1983, C.R.P. is filed since the subject-matter of litigation is below Rs.3,000 and against the decree in A.S.No.174 of 1983 the second appeal is also filed. The judgment in C.R.P. No.9 of 1984 has not been challenged and that has become final.