- (1.) The above Second Appeal arises against the Judgment and Decree in A.S. No. 317 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Court cum Fast Track Court, Namakkal, confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 392 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal. The Plaintiff is the Appellant, the Respondents 1 & 2 were the Defendants 1 & 3 and the Respondents 3 & 4 are the Legal Representatives of the deceased Second Defendant. The Plaintiff filed the Suit in O.S. No. 392 of 2001 for restraining the Defendants from interfering with his possession as lessee in respect of the Suit properties.
(2.) The briefcase of the Plaintiff is as follows: According to the Plaintiff, the Suit properties originally belonged to one Thaasi Naidu son of Thalame Naidu. The said Thaasi Naidu settled down in Ceylon and died in Ceylon itself. On 2.3.1954, one Sanjeevi Naidu, who is the son of Thaasi Naidu returned to India and for the purpose of maintaining the properties and for leasing out the properties, executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of Rangaraj Naidu, who is the father-in-law of the First Defendant. After the execution of the Power of Attorney, the said Sanjeevi Naidu returned to Ceylon, Rangaraj Naidu leased out the Suit properties to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is enjoying the Suit properties as a Cultivating Tenant. The Plaintiff is enjoying the Suit properties from the year 1973. The Defendants are not in possession of the property. The lessor Rangaraj Naidu had also died. The First Defendant is the son-in-law of Rangaraj Naidu. The Tenancy Tahsildar had passed an Order in Tenancy Case No. 4 of 1984 dated 5.3.1987 recognising the Plaintiff as a Cultivating Tenant. The First Defendant also contested the said case. The Plaintiff has been paying a sum or Rs. 300/- per month as annual rent. The Plaintiff has been paying the Land Tax and House Tax in respect of the Suit properties. The Defendants tried to interfere with the possession of the Plaintiff, therefore, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit.
(3.) The briefcase of the First Defendant is as follows: The First Defendant denied the execution of the Power of Attorney in favour of the Plaintiff on 2.3.1954. The Suit properties belonged to his father-in-law, Rangaraj Naidu. The said Rangaraj Naidu leased out the Suit properties to the Plaintiff. Since the said Rangaraj Naidu and his sons had died, the property devolved on Rangaraj Naidu's daughter Arjuna Devi. The said Arjuna Devi had also died, therefore, the First Defendant and his daughters are the absolute owners of the Suit properties. The Defendant did not interfere with the Plaintiffs possession of the Suit properties. In these circumstances, the First Defendant prayed for dismissal of the Suit.;