The court ruled that without concrete evidence of negligence causing injury to the land, cultivating tenants cannot be evicted, affirming protective intent of tenant laws.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are same and the challenge is also to the self same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. For the sake of convenience, we treat the Civil Appeal Nos. 7464-7466/2011, which are notified today at Serial No.103 of the cause list as the lead matter.

3. These appeals arise from the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 18.11.2009, by which the Second Appeal filed by the respondents herein (original plaintiffs) came to be allowed thereby set asiding the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2002 passed by the First Appellate Court in Appeal Suit No. 15/2001 arising from the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2000 passed in Original Suit No. 491/1994 by the Court of the II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.

4. This litigation has a long drawn history. The appellants before us are the original defendants and the respondents are the original plaintiffs.

5. During the pendency of the present appeals, the appellant Govindappa Gounder @ Govindasamy passed away. In such circumstances, we have permitted his legal heirs to be brought on record. Some of the respondents have also died.

6. It is the case of the appellants herein that Govindappa Gounder @ Govindasamy was lawfully cultivating the suit land bearing Survey Nos. 169-170 respectively, situated in Village Pichanoor, Taluk Coimbatore South, Tamil Nadu, admeasuring 6 Acres & 98 Cents. Since the respondents herein claiming to be the lawful owners of the suit property were trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the appellants herein, Original Suit No. 1363/1993 came to be instituted praying for permanent injunction restraining the land owners from interfering with his possession and cultivation of the subject land. The Original Suit No. 1363/1993 was allowed. The same came to be decreed. The Trial Court ordered that the land owners shall not disturb or interfere with the lawful possession of the tenant except in accordance with law. We are informed that against the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in the Original Suit No. 1363/1993, appeal was also filed and the said appeal also came to be dismissed.

7. We now proceed to look into one another proceedings.

It appears from the materials on record that the respondents herein claiming to be the lawful owners of the subject land instituted the Original Suit No. 491/1994 in the Court of District Munsif, Coimbatore seeking permanent injunction against the appellants herein restraining them from cutting trees or from causing any damage or waste to the subject property. The Plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 491/1994 also prayed for awarding adequate damages for the alleged loss caused by cutting trees etc. It appears that the Original Suit Nos. 1363/1993 and 491/1994 respectively were ordered to be consolidated, since the parties were the same and by and large the issues were also the same.

Common evidence was recorded. The Original Suit No. 491/1994 came to be allowed. The relief prayed for in the said suit was granted. The appellants herein being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed in the Original Suit No. 491/1994, preferred a First Appeal in the District Court. The First Appeal came to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was ordered to be set aside.

8. In such circumstances referr