1. Dispute regarding eviction of cultivating tenants under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, following allegations of land damage and waste. (Para 6 , 7 , 11 , 14 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1714
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Govindappa Gounder @ Govindasamy (Dead) – Appellants
Versus
K.Vijayakumar And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7464-7466 of 2011 with Civil Appeal Nos. 7467-7469 of 2011
Decided on : 10-09-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. N. Rajaraman, AOR Mr. T. V. George, AOR Mr. Pankaj Bist, Adv. Mr. Vijay Rawat, Adv. Mr. Karan Chauhan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr. V. Kandha Prabhu, Adv. Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Ms. Dhatri Singh, Adv. Mr. Guneswaran Pv, Adv. Mr. N. Rajaraman, AOR Mr. I.V Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Renu, Adv. Mr. Swagata Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shivani Verma, Adv. Ms. Pragya Jaishwal, Adv. Ms. Chandana Debnath, Adv. Mr. Nitin Kumar Nayak, Adv. Mr. Piyush, Adv. Mr. Anurag Ojha, AOR Ms. Samishti Solomon, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sarup, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. N. Rajaraman, AOR Mr. T. V. George, AOR Mr. Pankaj Bist, Adv. Mr. Vijay Rawat, Adv. Mr. Karan Chauhan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr. V. Kandha Prabhu, Adv. Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Ms. Dhatri Singh, Adv. Mr. Guneswaran Pv, Adv. Mr. N. Rajaraman, AOR Mr. I.V Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Renu, Adv. Mr. Swagata Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shivani Verma, Adv. Ms. Pragya Jaishwal, Adv. Ms. Chandana Debnath, Adv. Mr. Nitin Kumar Nayak, Adv. Mr. Piyush, Adv. Mr. Anurag Ojha, AOR Ms. Samishti Solomon, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sarup, Adv.
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.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 - Section 3(2)(b) - Cultivating tenant eviction - Appellants cultivated land since 1955-1960; earlier suits decreed in their favor against interference - Responses led to eviction proceedings citing damage to land; however, appeals found no negligence - Principles of protecting tenants affirmed by Court - Evidence insufficient to justify eviction under relevant section. (Paras 15-24)
(B) Jurisdiction of courts - Appellate courts are not to interfere with lower courts unless findings are perverse or illegal; the Revenue Court’s reliance on a single report was inappropriate. (Paras 20-22)
Facts of the case:
Appellants cultivated designated land; respondents claimed lawful ownership and sought eviction on damage allegations leading to Original Suit No. 491/1994 and revenue court proceedings. Cultivation history and established rights highlighted. (Paras 6-12)
Findings of Court:
There was insufficient evidence to substantiate claims of damage or negligence by the appellants toward tenancy-protected land; the eviction order was overturned. (Paras 20-24)
Issues: Key considerations were whether the appellants committed acts harmful to the land and whether eviction was justified under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act 1955. The court re-evaluated the appropriateness of evidence in support of eviction claims. (Paras 17-19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of protecting tenants from eviction unless there is compelling evidence of harm being done to lands, affirming the necessity for judicial accuracy in eviction proceedings. (Paras 22-24)
Result: Appeals allowed; impugned High Court order and eviction proceedings quashed.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether cutting trees and digging pits constituted acts destructive or injurious to the land, justifying eviction under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act 1955. (Para 11 , 14 , 18 )
3. The court found no cogent evidence of substantial damage, noting that pruning trees does not satisfy the requirements for eviction under the protective statute. (Para 20 , 21 )
4. Beneficent legislation protecting tenants must be interpreted in their favor, requiring cogent evidence of gross violation of Section 3(2)(b) to justify eviction. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
5. Appeals allowed; eviction orders of the Revenue Court and High Court set aside; tenants' possession protected. (Para 25 , 26 )
6. What is the scope of protection for cultivating tenants under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955?
Landlords are generally prohibited from evicting cultivating tenants, except when the tenant has committed acts destructive or injurious to the land or crops, or has ceased to cultivate the land. (Para 15 , 16 )
7. Does the pruning of trees constitute a destructive or injurious act justifying eviction under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act 1955?
No, the court held that pruning trees does not bring a case within the ambit of Section 3(2)(b), as it does not necessarily constitute substantial damage or negligence injurious to the land. (Para 20 )
8. How should the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 be interpreted by courts?
As a beneficent statute intended to protect tenants from forcible dispossession, it must be interpreted broadly to provide the widest possible relief, leaning in favor of the tenants in case of doubt. (Para 22 , 24 )
9. What standard of evidence is required to evict a tenant on the grounds of causing damage to the land?
Eviction is only justified when there is cogent, credible, and reliable evidence on record demonstrating a gross violation of the provisions of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act. (Para 22 )
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 referred to above, the respondents herein i.e. the original plaintiffs, went before the High Court in Second Appeal. The Second Appeal came to be allowed. The High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and restored the original decree passed by the Trial Court.
9. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellants –(legal heirs), are here before us with the present appeals.
10. We heard Mr. T.V. George, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.
