CHEMBIAN SELVAN Vs. RATHINAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 11.11.1993, made in A.S.No,21 of 1992, on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 9.1.1992, made in O.S.No,71 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nannilam.

(2.) THE appellants in the present second appeal were the defendants in the suit, in O.S.No,71 of 1991. THE plaintiffs in the suit who are the respondents herein, had filed the original suit, in O.S.No,71 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nannilam, praying for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants in the suit, restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties.

(3.) IT has been further stated that, along with the suit schedule properties, certain other properties are also belonging to the village community. Even though some of the lands are in the possession of various persons, the suit schedule properties of 1 acre and 70 cents, in S.F.No,23/1, is in the possession of the village community. The income obtained from the properties is spent on the maintenance of the temples in the village. From the lease agreement filed by the plaintiffs it is seen that the properties are in the name of one P.K.Subramaniam. In fact, P.K.Subramaniam is not the absolute owner of the property in S.F.No,23/1. Further, he does not have the power or the authority to grant lease in respect of the land in question. The claim of the plaintiffs that they are cultivating the suit properties cannot be accepted. In fact, no other crop can be cultivated in the suit properties, except paddy. The income which is derived from the leasing out of the land in question is spent on the village community. As such, the first defendant had given the land to the first plaintiff, for one year, for the purpose of cultivation. The first plaintiff had cultivated sugarcane crop in the suit schedule properties, without the knowledge of the first defendant. The land is given on lease to the members of the village community, for the purpose of cultivation, on turn basis. Even though the granting of the lease of the land to the first plaintiff, by the first defendant, is not in accordance with law, the first plaintiff ought to have vacated the property on the expiry of the one year lease period. Even otherwise, the defendants are not attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Unless the plaintiffs are in a position to show that they are entitled to the possession and occupation of the suit properties, the relief-s prayed for by them cannot be granted.