M NARAYANA AIYANGAR DIED Vs. M CHINNASWAMY DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representatives of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and plaintiffs 3 to 8 are the appellants.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed suit in O.S. No. 266/79 before the District Munsif against one Chinnaswamy for a permanent injunction or in the alternative for recovery of possession averring as follows: THE coconut topes set out in the plaint schedule belong to the plaintiffs absolutely. THEy had given a licence to the defendant Chinnaswamy for plucking the coconuts. THE licence was liable to be terminated at any time. On 15.12.78, the plaintiffs terminated the licence and called upon the defendant to surrender possession. THE plaintiffs also informed the defendant that on and from That 1979, the defendant should not pluck coconuts in the coconut topes. THEy also issued notice under Ex.A-4 dated 16.1.79 and Ex.A-6 dated 7.2.79 terminating the licence. Even after such termination, the defendant entered the coconut topes and attempted to cause damage in an unauthorized way, plucking 500 coconuts worth Rs. 390/- and removed them. THEre was a reply under the original of Ex.B-1 dated 14.2.79 on behalf of the defendant that the defendant was cultivating the suit land and that he was entitled to the benefits of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. THE said averment was a false one. Notwithstanding the protest on the part of the plaintiffs on 19.2.79, the defendant put up a hut in the suit property with the assistance of his henchmen. In case the Court should find that the defendant had possession of the site also, a decree should be passed for recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiffs. A permanent injunction was also necessary restraining the defendant from entering upon the suit property and plucking the coconuts. Alternatively, there should be a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffs and for damages for a sum of Rs. 300/- and future mesne profits.

(3.) THOUGH the respondents have been served, they have not chosen to appear and contest the Second Appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Courts below have concurrently found that the defendant had not established that he was cultivating vegetables in the suit land besides collecting the usufructs. When such a finding had been reached by the Courts below, they ought to have further held that what was given was only a licence, that the licence had been validly terminated and the plaintiffs were entitled to recovery of possession; damages for use and occupation in respect of the suit land. In support of the said submission, the learned Counsel relied on a number of decisions, the latest and the last of them being the Judgment of P. Sathasivam, J. in Senniappa Nadar v. T.R. Sarojini Ammal and another, (1996) 2 M.L.J. 500 = 1996 1 L.W. 291,