- (1.)THE second appeal arises out of O.S.No.323 of 1987 filed by one Narayanasamy the first respondent herein, before the District Munsif, Villupuram, for permanent injunction against the appellants herein. THE first respondent having died pending the second appeal, his wife has been brought on record as the second respondent herein.
(2.)THE plaintiff's case was as follows: THE suit properties in five different survey numbers of a total extent of 2.97 acres were being cultivated by him by his own physical labour. His father was cultivating the properties along with him till the father died in the year 1978. THE annual lease was 20 bags of paddy for the first crop and 10 bags of paddy for the second crop in a year if the lands were cultivated for the second crop also. His grandfather was also cultivating the suit properties as a cultivating tenant from the then owners of the suit properties. For more than 50 years the suit properties were being cultivated by the plaintiff's family. While the plaintiff's father was alive, he was paying the lease to the landlord Ranga Iyer, son of Venkatasubramania Iyer. After the death of his father, the plaintiff was managing the family and he along with the other members of the family, had been in continuous possession and enjoyment as cultivating tenant regularly paying the lease to the owner without any default. At the time of filing the suit, the lease for the first crop for the current year had been paid to Ranga Iyer. THE lease paddy was being collected either by Ranga Iyer or by his father Venkatasubramania Iyer. Except the suit properties, the plaintiff was not cultivating any other property of Ranga Iyer or Venkatasubramania Iyer. THE plaintiff and his predecessors had spent more than Rs.25,000 for reclamation of the suit properties. While so, the first defendant/first respondent had been proclaiming in the village that he had purchased the suit properties from Ranga Iyer, that since he was employed in Madras, his sister, the second defendant/second appellant herein was acting as his agent. THE second defendant had the backing of rowdy elements in the village. THE first respondent with his money power and influence was trying to take forcible possession of the suit properties from the plaintiff. On 1.4.1987 acting on the instructions from the first respondent, the second respondent along with rowdy elements in the village, tried to trespass upon the suit properties. It was under those circumstances, the present suit came to be filed. THE plaintiff could not be evicted except by due process of law.
The first respondent filed a written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff as cultivating tenant. The plaintiff was never the lessee under the real owner Ranga Iyer. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and Ranga Iyer. Ranga Iyer sold the properties to the first defendant for valid consideration. The second defendant was the first defendant's elder sister and as the first defendant was a permanent resident of Madras, his properties were being managed by the second defendant. It was false to say that she was having the backing of rowdy elements. Only the plaintiff had the backing of rowdy elements. The first defendant was not interested in taking forcible possession as there was no necessity for the same and the theory of trespass alleged was equally false. The plaintiff had taken advantage of the absence of the first defendant from the village and the second defendant being a lady, had filed the suit so as to harass the defendants. The plaintiff had in his credit a number of criminal convictions. The defendants were Harijans and the plaintiff had got an edge over them since he had a large backing go give trouble as he liked. The status of the plaintiff as a cultivating tenant was denied and unless and until he proved the same, he was not entitled to any benefit. Merely filing any petition subsequent to the filing of the suit would not give him any benefit when the status of the initial stage itself had been questioned. The suit had been filed to drag on the proceedings. The question of evicting the plaintiff under due process of law did not arise since he was not a tenant. There was no cause of action for the suit.

On the above pleadings, the learned District Munsif, Villupuram, framed the following issues: " (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunctione " (2) Whether the suit is maintainablee and " (3) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled toe

On the side of the plaintiff Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked. Besides examining himself as P.W.1, the plaintiff examined three witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4. On the side of the defendants, Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. The first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and two other witnesses as D.W.2 and D.W.3. The learned District Munsif, on the oral and documentary evidence found that the case of the plaintiff was that he was cultivating paddy and paying 20 bags for the first bogam and 10 bags for the second bogam, if raised, to the owner Venkatasubramania Iyer, but Exs.A-1 to A-8 produced on the side of the plaintiff showed that the plaintiff was cultivating sugarcane in the properties and inasmuch as no valid explanation had been given by the plaintiff for not mentioning about his raising sugarcane in the suit properties, it could not be said that he was a cultivating tenant of the suit properties and that in any event, he had not established that on the date of the suit, he was in possession of the properties. The learned District Munsif further observed that, the oral evidence on either side could not be acted upon. The learned District Munsif also found that in the documents produced by the plaintiff, only an extent of 2.40 acres was taken care of and there was no explanation as to why the balance of 57 cents was left out. The learned District Munsif refused to rely on Exs.A-5 and A-8 respectively the notice issued by Venkatasubramania Iyer to the plaintiff and the accounts furnished by Venkatasubramania Iyer and Ex.A-6 which is the order of South Indian Sugar Factory, Mundiampakkam, given to the plaintiff for sugar cutting, as, according to the learned District Munsif on the dates Exs.A-5 and A-8 came into existence, there had been a partition between Venkatasubramania Iyer and his son Ranga Iyer and the suit properties had fallen to the share of Ranga Iyer and Venkatasubramania Iyer had no authority to write or commit himself on behalf of his son Ranga Iyer. The learned District Munsif held that the plaintiff had not explained as to why after the partition Venkatasubramania Iyer should either correspond or give accounts in respect of the suit properties. The learned District Munsif discredited Ex.A-9 letter. The plaintiff's stand that Ex.A-1 indemnity bond had been signed by Ranga Iyer was also not accepted by the trial court on the ground that Ranga Iyer had not been examined before the Court. The trial Court chose to rely on the exhibits marked on the side of the defendants and dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 18.4.1988. The plaintiff filed appeal A.S.No.54 of 1988 before the Subordinate Judge, Villupuram. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the oral and documentary evidence on the side of the plaintiff and found that he had established that he was a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit properties, that the adangals produced clearly showed him and his father as cultivating tenants, that the plaintiff was the cultivating tenant would be evident from the letter written by Ranga Iyer's father Venkatasubramania Iyer, that the plaintiff had supplied sugarcane to Mundiampakkam Sugar Factory from the suit lands, that he had also raised loans on the security of the sugarcane in the suit properties and that the first defendant had not established that he was put in possession of the properties pursuant to the sale in his favour. So holding the learned Subordinate Judge by judgment and decree dated 17.11.1988 reversed the decision of the trial court, accepted the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for. It is as against this the second appeal has been filed.

At the time of admission the following substantial questions of law were raised for decision in the second appeal: " (1) Whether the suit of the respondent/plaintiff cannot be maintained in view of Sec.6-A of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants ProtectionAct 14 of 1955 and amended upto datee and " (2) Whether the suit of the respondent/plaintiff is without jurisdiction in view of Sec.16-A of the Record of Tenancy Rights Acte

(3.)MR.T.V.Ramanujam, learned senior counsel for MR.C.Umashankar, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the lower Appellate Court had not found that the plaintiff was in possession on the date of the suit, that there was no proof that he paid lease for the suit year, that the suit was bad for non-joinder of Ranga Iyer as a party, that Ex.A-11 relied on by the plaintiff was not in his name, that P.W.3 had not given particulars regarding enjoyment and that P.W.4 had stated that the property was lying fallow. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the various exhibits relied on by the Appellate Court had not been proved and the lower Appellate Court was in error in relying on those documents.
Per contra, Mr.Sundar, learned counsel for the second respondent, submitted that the suit was filed on 2.4.1987 that upto 1982 there were documents that there were prevaricating averments made on behalf of the appellants, that in the civil miscellaneous petition filed in the second appeal a specific allegation had been made that the plaintiff was never in possession at any point of time, that the first defendant as D.W.1 admitted that the plaintiff was in possession even in the chief examination and that the defendants had kept back the original sale deed which would show that the plaintiff was a cultivating tenant. The learned counsel further submitted that in the proceedings before the Record Officer it had been found that the plaintiff was a cultivating tenant and that in those circumstances, no exception could be taken to the finding reached by the lower Appellate Court.

The writ petition W.P.No.4686 of 1999 has been filed by the first defendant for a certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the passing of the order dated 25.9.1997 in Na.Ka.B-3/45154/95 by the District Revenue Officer, Villupuram, the second respondent in the writ petition and under the following circumstances. The properties of a total extent of 2.97 acres were purchased by the petitioner under a registered sale deed on 31.12.1986. On the date of its purchase its vendor Ranga Iyer was cultivating the lands on his own. After the purchase of the lands, the patta had been transferred in his name. He had adangal and chitta in his name. He never left the land to anyone for tenancy. One Narayanasamy, the husband of Umayal, the third respondent in the writ petition/the second respondent in the second appeal, filed the suit O.S.No.323 of 1987 for injunction. Having failed, he failed appeal which was allowed against which the second appeal has been filed. At the time of filing the suit, Narayanasamy filed an application for injunction in I.A.No.671 of 1987 and there was temporary injunction granted till 31.12.1987 and the same was not extended thereafter. On the date of filing of the suit, i.e., on 2.4.1987 Narayanasamy was not in possession of the land. In the first appeal filed by Narayanasamy, there was no interim order granted. In C.M.P.No.2743 of 1989 filed along with the second appeal, status quo was ordered on 7.4.1989 and the same was made absolute on 7.7.1989 and this would show that the writ petitioner was in possession of the land in question. After the filing of the suit. Narayanasamy filed petition under Sec.4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Record of Agricultural Land Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Record Officer and Revenue Tahsildar, Villupuram, in T.R.No.3 of 1987. By order dated 30.11.1992 the Tahsildar dismissed the petition. Narayanaswamy filed appeal in T.R.A.P.No.9 of 1993 before the Sub Collector, Revenue Court, Cuddalore, which was allowed on 19.4.1995. Revision against that order was filed before the District Revenue Officer. Villupuram, who dismissed the same by order dated 25.9.1997 against which the petition filed appeal before Commissioner, Land Reforms. By proceedings dated 18.2.1998, the Commissioner, Land Reforms, had directed the District Revenue Officer to issue a modified order stating that no appeal would lie on his order and an appeal would lie only to the High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution. The modified order took a long time to be passed by the District Revenue Officer. In the meantime, Narayanasamy died and his legal representatives were brought on record in S.A.No.350 of 1989. The third respondent in the writ petition served a civil miscellaneous petition on the petitioner stating that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer, Villupuram, directing the Tahsildar to record her name in the record as cultivating tenant and it had to be marked in the second appeal as additional document. Immediately, he rushed to the office of the District Revenue Officer. Villupuram, but there was no response. He then caused a letter to be issued in March to the District Revenue Officer to issue a modified order as directed by the Commissioner, Land Reforms. There was a modified order passed on 8.3.1999 and the present writ petition came to be filed.