S. RATNASAMI MUDALIAR Vs. PONNAMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant is the appellant. The appeal itself at this stage is confined to items 10, 11,17,18, 24,2 7 to 30, 36 to 41 and 44 to 47 of the schedule to the plaint. It is common ground that these are all wet lands. In paragraph 11 of the written statement filed in the suit the first defendant pleaded that he was a lessee in possession of all these items, and the plea in paragraphs 11 and 13 of the written statement was that he was a cultivating tenant within the meaning of Act XIV of 1952. After the first defendant filed his written statement the plaintiffs obtained permission and amended the plaint, introducing paragraph 17(a) and in para 21(d)(1) the plaintiffs as the basis for the alternative relief they asked for, that if it was found that the first defendant was a tenant under the plaintiffs of the items specified above, he would still be liable to be evicted and that the plaintiffs were still entitled to get possession.

(2.) ISSUE 4 of the issues framed by the learned Subordinate Judge ran:

(3.) IT cannot be denied that the litigation before us has to be dealt with under Section 6 -A of the Act XXV of 1955, which was enacted by the amending Act XIV of 1956.