THANGAVELU NAICKER Vs. MUTHUKUMARA CHETTIAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Thangavelu Naicker was appointed by two brothers Muthukumara Chettiar and Somasundaram Chettiar to be a watchman or kavalkarar for their coconut tope, Puliantope and other clusters of trees in two survey numbers in which the own distinct portions. It is common ground that Thangavelu Naicker was paid Rs. 40 every year and was also entitled to take the ripe coconut leaves. His duties as kavalkarar included gathering, plucking and delivering the fruits of tamarind trees. In 1963, Thangavelu Naicker moved the Authorised Officer functioning under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act for a declaration that he was a cultivating tenant under the two brothers. He did not succeed in obtaining an order in his favour and an appeal from the decision of the Authorised Officer also failed. In those proceedings, it was held that Thangavelu Naicker was not a tenant, much less a cultivating tenant of Muthukumara Chettiar and Somasundaram Chettiar. Thereafter, Thangavelu Naicker filed O. S. No. 191 of 1972 against the owners of the property, asking for a permanent injunction restraining the owners from evicting him from the premises. It may be observed that in the coconut tope, Somasundaram Chettiar had raised a hut and in that hut Thangavelu Naicker was permitted to reside for purposes of looking after the topes. Thangavelu Naicker accordingly claimed in the suit that he was entitled to ownership of the hut and the underlying land as a kudiyiruppu. He invoked the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act (XL of 1971). The suit was resisted by the owners of the tope and the superstructure on the score that after the adverse decision by the duly constituted authorities and the Tribunals under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1961, Thangavelu Naicker was disentitled to file a suit for injunction against them. It was also pleaded that the Madras Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1971 was not applicable to Thangavelu Naicker or to the suit property in question.

(2.) THE learned District Munsif recorded a finding that Thangavelu Naicker was not a tenant of the land, but he was a kavalkarar of the coconut and other topes under the owner Muthukumara Chettiar and Somasundaram Chettiar. But the learned District Munsif held that since there were disputes between Thangavelu Naicker and the owners as early as in 1970 on the question of tenancy rights, he must be held to have ceased to be a watchman or kavalkarar. On this basis, the learned District Munsif held that Thangavelu Naicker was disentitled from invoking the provisions of the Act since the said Act was applicable only to an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer who was in occupation of a kudiyiruppu on 19th June, 1971. In this case, according to the finding of the learned District Munsif, he had ceased to be the kavalkarar and, therefore, ceased to be the licensee even in 1970.

(3.) THANGAVELU Naicker has brought this second appeal before this Court against the decisions of the Courts below.