AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—Aggrieved over the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Myladuthurai, rejecting the defence plea put forth by
the appellant herein, who suffered a decree in the hands of the learned District Munsif, Myladuthurai in O.S. No. 51/2000 in a suit filed by the
respondent, seeking for recovery of possession and mesne profits, has brought forth this appeal.
The respondents 1 to 3 as plaintiffs filed a suit seeking the said reliefs by stating that the suit mentioned landed property belonged to them; that
first plaintiff is a resident of Chennai, whereas the second plaintiff is married and living at Nannilam, and the first defendant was appointed as
Kariasthar to look after the properties; that the first plaintiff went to his pannailands house, and he was informed that the lock of the house was
broken open and the first defendant has fixed another lock. Plaintiffs lodged a complaint before the concerned police and despite, their objections,
the first defendant has raised crops in the suit land. Under the circumstances, their arose a necessity for filing a suit for recovery of possession since
the first defendant was neither a tenant nor a lease holder.
The first defendant, who is the appellant herein, resisted the suit inter alia stating that the suit property belonged to one Ramakrishna Iyer, the
second defendant, and the appellant was a cultivating tenant in respect of the property for nearly a decade. Hence, he is entitled to the benefits of
the Tenancy Law. Under the circumstances, the suit was to be dismissed. The second defendant filed a written statement submitting to a decree.
Necessary issues were framed. The suit was tried by the learned District Munsif, Myladuthurai and a decree was granted in favour of the
plaintiffs. Aggrieved over the same, the first defendant took the matter on appeal in A.S. No. 195/2003 on the file of Principal Sub Court,
Myladuthurai, wherein the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. Aggrieved over the same, the above second appeal has been brought forth by
the first defendant.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel and on scrutiny of the materials
available on record, the Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out by the appellant herein even for admission.
The specific case of the plaintiffs was that the suit described landed properties belonged to them. The defence which was put forth by the first
defendant was twofold, in that the properties belonged to the second defendant, Ramakrishna Iyer and that he was a cultivating tenant for decades
past. The second defendant filed a written statement stating that a decree could be passed and hence, it was an admission of the plaint allegations
including that the properties belonged to the plaintiffs.
It has to be pointed out that the first defendant did not claim title to the property but he claimed that he was a cultivating tenant. Unfortunately,
he could not substantiate the said claim by any documentary evidence. Had it been true that he was a cultivating tenant for decades, he should have
been in possession of documentary evidence. But in the instant case, he did not possess any document at all. The only document marked before
the lower court is Ex.B2, a letter and a reading of the same would go to show that the same would not give him right to claim as a cultivating tenant
because it was a communication between the parties.
Under such circumstances, the contention what was put forth by the appellant before the courts below and equally here also that his possession
has got to be protected, since he was a cultivating tenant failed. Hence, both the courts below were perfectly correct in granting the relief in favour
of the plaintiffs.
The Court is unable to see any question of law, much less, substantial question of law, that arises for consideration in this second appeal. Hence,
the above second appeal is dismissed.