T.V.MASILAMANI, J. - (1.)The defendant is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent filed the suit for damages for use and occupation to the tune of Rs.1,31,975/- and after deducting Rs.14,275/- towards compensation for 571 coconut trees at Rs.25/- per tree payable to the appellant, he has made claim of Rs.1,17,700/-. The appellant resisted the claim of the respondent, that he is entitled to the benefit of tenancy laws and pleaded inter alia in his written statement that the claim made by the respondent by way of damages for use and occupation is not maintainable. The respondent has also come forward with cross objection in respect of the disallowed portion of the claim.
(2.)The facts that lead to the filing of this appeal may be briefly narrated hereunder:- The suit property is a coconut grove measuring 6.01 acres in R.S.No.293/1 Thiruvalanchuli village, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District belonging to the respondent-Devasthanam and by an agreement between the appellant and the respondent, the former agreed to raise 600 coconut trees in the suit land within 5 years and thereafter to hand over the same to the respondent for which he would be entitled to receive compensation for raising and rearing the coconut trees. The said period of 5 years was extended thrice, firstly from 1.7.1968 to 30.6.1973, then from 30.6.1973 to 30.6.1976 and thereafter from 1.7.1976 to 30.6.1981 on the ground that the coconut trees were not ripe enough to yield nuts. In the meanwhile, the appellant has agreed to pay Rs.2,200/- per fasli for raising plantains as inter crop in the demised land. Similarly, he was permitted to enjoy 19 bamboo clusters and 4 mango trees also.
(3.)After expiry of the lease period ending on 30.6.1981, the respondent arranged to lease the usufructs of the coconut trees in public auction and thereupon the appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.650 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Kumbakonam for an injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his possession of the suit property. The said suit was dismissed and thereupon the appellant filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. In the appeal, it was held that the appellant was not a cultivating tenant. However, the first appellate court granted permanent injunction directing the respondent Devasthanam to file a suit for recovery of possession and to pay compensation to the appellant for rearing coconut trees. Against the said judgment and decree, the respondent filed a Second Appeal before this Court, whereas the appellant filed a cross appeal and the same are pending. The respondent valued the damages for unauthorised occupation by the appellant from faslis 1391 to 1394 as per the details given in the plaint thereby claiming totally a sum of Rs.1,31,975/-.