RAJENDRAN Vs. GOVINDASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been preferred against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.24 of 1993 and A.S.No.37 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore against the decree and judgment dated 11.1.1993 made in O.S.Nos. 399 of 1990 and 375 of 1990 respectively. The defenant in O.S.No. 399 of 1990 who has succeeded before the trial Court had lost his case in the appeal is the appellant in S.A.No.617 of 1997. The defendant in O.S.No.375 of 1990 who has lost his case in the appeal is the appellant in S.A.No.618 of 1990. S.A.NO.617 OF 1997: The short facts in the plaint in O.S.No.399 of 1990 relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:

(2.) THE suit is for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property which is 2 Acres and 7 " Cents in Old Survey No.694/1 out of 11 Acres 8 Cents. THE new survey Number is 21/1 measuring 0.83.0 ares. THE plaint schedule property absolutely belonged to Anjalai Ammal. She along with her son leased out the suit property to the plaintiff under a lease deed dated 15.10.1989. THE lease is for a period of two years. THE annual lease rent is Rs.500/- In pursuance of the lease deed the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property as a lessee. He is a cultivating tenant to the suit property. THE defendant has no right or interest whatsoevr in the suit property. However, the plaintiff is making attempt to trespass into the suit property and trying to pluck the cashewnuts. If the defendant is allowed to trespass into the suit property, it will result in heavy loss to the plaintiff. Hence the suit for injunction.

(3.) THE short facts in the plaint in O.S.No.375 of 1990 relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows: