K. CHENNAIYAN Vs. MUNIAMMAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit O.S. No. 383 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif. Krishnagiri is one for tare injunction.

(2.) The prayer in the suit is for granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, from trespassing on the suit properties, or from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by the plaintiff in any manner. In the Plaint it is stated by the plaintiff that he had been cultivating the ant properties without any interruption from 1974. There were some disputes between the 1st defendant and her daughter-in-law Lakshmiammal. The plaintiff advised the 1st defendant not to act adversely to the interest of the minor grand-daughter, i.e., the daughter of Thimmarayan, the second defendant. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants had been trying to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a cultivating tenant. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. The second defendant who has got ale deed from the 1st defendant on 17.12.1980 in respect of the property is a powerful nan. Basing his claim upon such false and fictitious documents of sale in his favour, the second defendant as well as the first defendant are trying to trespass on the suit properties, to take forcible possession of the same. As a ratter of fact they tried to trespass on 17.4.1981 and with great difficulty, the plaintiff prevented the defendants from carrying out their unlawful intention. The plaintiff has also filed a petition for registering his tenancy under Act 10 of 1969 before the Tahsildar. Unless the defendants are restrained by a permanent injunction the defendant may oust the plaintiff from his lawful possession. Hence, the suit.

(3.) In the written statement filed by both the defendants it was contended that the plaintiff is not an agriculturist but is an employee in Electricity Board. The plaintiff is not cultivating the suit land from the year 1974 as alleged. The alleged lease deeds dated 9.7.1974 and 20.7.1979 are not true and genuine. The first defendant has not executed any document of lease. It would be seen from the alleged document itself that it is not a genuine document and alterations are found there. The first defendant is an old and uneducated woman. The plaintiff took advantage of the situation when the first defendant wanted to raise cash crop/plantain in her land. The plaintiff who has already purchased ⅓rd portion from the 1st defendant herself volunteered his services for raising such crop and also help the old woman in raising the crop. The 1st defendant believed the representation and the cash crop was raised with a condition that the plaintiff has to take ⅜ share of the sale proceeds. Now he cannot take advantage of such a licence to claim the relationship of landlady and tenant. The suit is liable to be dismissed.