- (1.)THE plaintiff in O.S.No. 34 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore is the appellant herein. The plaintiff instituted the said suit for redemption, recovery of possession and for future mesne profits. The trial Court granted preliminary decree for redemption from the first defendant and directed the plaintiff to go before the Revenue Court for recovery of possession from the second defendant as the second defendant has since been recorded as a cultivating tenant. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No.3 of 1985 on the file of the District Court, Cuddalore which was transferred to the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore and taken on file as A.S.No. 2 of 1985.
(2.)THE first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. In other words the plaintiff suit for redemption had been decreed and the plaintiff prayer for recovery of possession had been negatived with a direction that the plaintiff has to go before the Revenue Court for recovery of possession as the second defendant is a cultivating tenant. Being aggrieved the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff insofar as the relief of recovery of possession had been negatived.
At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court:

'When the order obtained by the 2nd respondent before the Record Officer being a collusive one and obtained ex parte without making the plaintiff a party, is the learned Subordinate Judge right in holding that the 2nd respondent is entitled to the benefits of Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and the Civil Court cannot go into that question '?

(3.)HEARD Mrs. N. Krishnaveni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.S.K. Rakhunathan for the respondents. For convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial court.