- (1.)The second defendant in 0. S. 666 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry, is the appellant in this second appeal. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the second respondent herein is the first defendant in the suit. The plaintiff laid the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property was described in. the schedule as follows : "Pondicherry - Orleanpet Commune, Sarampacom, Cadastre Nos. 65, 66, 76, 102, 104.62.66-B and coconut thope in No. 86 total extent is 3 Kani 37 Kulies." The plaintiff, in support of the above prayer, put forth the following allegations : He is a cultivating tenant in respect of. the suit property. The suit property comprises of a coconut tope in Cadestre No. 86 and the lease specifically covers the coconut tope also. The first defendant claims to have leased out the coconut tope in Cadastre No. 86 to the second defendant and the second defendant is trying to interfere with-the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the right statutorily available to him under the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act No. 9 of 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The first defendant contested the suit by stating that the plaintiff is not. a lessee in respect of the coconut tope in Cadastre No. 86 and he was only a licensee for plucking the coconuts and even that license was terminated and subsequently, the second defendant has been given that right, and the plaintiff cannot come under the definition of a cultivating tenant' as defined in the Act. The written statement of the second defendant practically ran more or less on the same lines as that of the first defendant and he reiterated that the plaintiff was only a licensee for collecting the usufructs from the coconut topes. On the pleadings put forth by the parties. the first court formulated the Following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff is lessee in respect of the suit coconut toppu or is only a licence? Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties? Whether the second defendant is in possession of the suit coconut toppu? Whether the plaintiff is entitled for issue of injunction as prayed? To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?" The first Court examined the evidence, oral and documentary, placed by the parties in the case and on issue No. 1, it came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is only a licence for the usufructs from the coconut tope in Cadastre No. 86. With regard to items Nos. 2 to 4, the possession of the lands, other than the coconut tope in Cadastre No. 86, having been admitted by the first defendant and over which the second defendant did not make any claim, the first court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for, except with regard to the coconut tope in Cadastre No. 86. As a result, the suit was decreed as prayed for, except with regard to the coconut tope in Cadastre No. 86. The plaintiff's claim in respect of the coconut tope in Cadastre No. 86 was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed and the appeal A. S. No. 136 of 1981, was heard and disposed of by the second Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. Before the lower appellate court, the parties appear to have taken out applications for adducing further documentary evidence. The first defendant had two earlier lease documents for faslis 1388 and 1389, entered into by the plaintiff marked as Ex. B. 4 and B. 5. The plaintiff had an earlier document of sublease by the then lessee to a third party, dated 6-121965, marked as Ex. A. 8. 1 will have occasion to refer to Exs B. 4 and B. 5 at a later stage. The lower appellate Court, on an assessment of the factual materials, including the new documents placed before it, came to the conclusion that the lease in respect of Cadastre No. 86 is not only of 'the usufructs of the coconut tope but also of the land therein. In this view, it chose to reverse the judgment and decree of the first Court in respect of Cadastre No. 86 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff in respect of this item also. Thus, the plaintiff has now obtained the reliefs he asked for in respect of Cadastre No. 86 also. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court.
(2.)At the time of admission of this second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were mooted out for consideration
"1. Whether the lower appellate Court was right in its interpretation of the Tamil word 'kuthakai' relating to coconut trees, would include the land also? 2' - Whether the lower appellate Court was right in holding that akuthakai tharar'of coconut trees for collecting the usufruct would be entitled to the benefits of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act?

(3.)1 must point out that the submission made by the learned counsel for-the second defendant as well as the feared counsel for the plaintiff practically traveled beyond the substantial questions of law mooted out for consideration and I permitted such submissions in order to decide the matter comprehensively. In my view, they do touch upon questions of law, substantial indeed, and a decision on them cannot be obviated. Learned counsel for the plaintiff advanced a particular submission, which was-not projected before the courts below in the manner now advanced before me and that is a question of law simplifier, reflecting an opinion of a learned single, Judge of, this court.