GRACE MASILAMANI Vs. SUGUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.38 of 2005 dated 27.01.2006 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, confirming the Judgment and decree made in O.S.No.387 of 2004 dated 23.09.2004, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil.

(2.) For the sake of convenience both the parties will be referred to as they were before the trial court.

(3.) The brief case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is the widow of late Krishna Iyer and the second plaintiff is her son. The suit properties originally belonged to late Krishna Iyer. He obtained the same as per a registered partition deed dated 11.05.1964. In the year 1965, since he was residing in Autoor, he engaged Mr.Masilamani, the husband of the 1st defendant, as Watcher or Parvaikaran for supervising the agricultural operations in the suit properties. At the time of harvest, Krishna Iyer used to come and collect the yield and pay amount for next agricultural operations and for his services. Krishna Iyer died on 15.11.1980. After his death, Masilamani was requested to do the agricultural activities, sell the products and settle the accounts on behalf of the plaintiffs. But he has no right of his own and he was considered as a trusted agent of the plaintiffs. Masilamani also died in the year 2000. After the death of Masilamani, the plaintiffs approached the 1st defendant, who is the widow of Masilamani, and demanded her for settling accounts for the four crops from the year 1999 to 2000. She told them that her husband Masilamani used to give the scheduled properties, what she called as oral Othi for the last four to five years and that one portion was given to another person. When the second plaintiff stated his willingness to do agriculture in the said land, the 1st defendant threatened the plaintiffs that if the 2nd plaintiff takes any efforts to get possession of the properties, she would file criminal case against him as if he abused her community. Hence, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice to the defendants on 19.11.2000. Assuming without conceding that, even if it was presumed that Sri.Masilamani was a lessee of the scheduled properties, it was informed to the defendants that the same was terminated, and there was a direction to surrender vacant possession of the same then. The first defendant sent reply notice to the plaintiffs on 23.01.2001 contending that late Masilamani was a cultivating tenant of the schedule properties and after his demise the 1st defendant was entitled to the protection under Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1956. Masilamani was never registered as a cultivating tenant. The defendants are duty bound to deliver the scheduled properties to the plaintiffs with all the income for the past five crops and future mesne profits. The defendants are liable to pay Rs.8,750/- per annum towards past income from the properties, totally Rs.21,875/- and they are also liable to pay future mesne profits at the same rate. Hence the plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of possession and past and future mesne profits.