Judgment.-Defendants 3 and 7 to 14 are the appellants. The suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 and 7 to 14 from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties as long as they are the lessees and cultivating tenants in respect thereof. The suit properties originally belonged to defendants 1 and 2. They leased the properties in favour of one MahadevaNaidu, the father and the husband of respondents 1 and 2 respectively. Subsequent to the death of Mahadeva Naidu on 30th June, 1968, the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 claimed that as the legal representatives of the said Mahadeva Naidu, they are the lessees and that they are also cultivating tenants entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act. Itappears that on 27th July, 1968 the properties were sold by the first and second defendants in favour of the third defendant . Defendants 7 to 12 are the children of the third defendant and the 14th defendant is the wife of the third defendant. The 13th defendant is the wife of the seventh defendant. On the ground that subsequent to the death of Mahadeva Naidu, defendants 1 to 3 and 7 to 14 are threatening to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, the suit was filed for a permanent injunction as stated already.

2. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that Mahadeva Naidu was a cultivating tenant entitled to the protection of the Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act. But, they did not go into the question whether the plaintiffs themselves are cultivating tenants. The trial Court proceeded to consider the question on the basis that as the legal heirs of Mahadeva Naidu, the plaintiffs are entitled to the protection, but dismissed the suit for injunction on the ground that though on the date when the suit was filed the plaintiffs have been proved to be in possession, they have admitted that they were dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. Since the plaint had. not been amended in spite of the possession having gone to the defendants the trial Court dismissed the suit for injunction . The plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The lower appellate Court thought that since on the date when the suit was filed the plaintiffs were in possession, the subsequent events could not be taken into account in granting or refusing to grant. the injunction sought for and accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for.

3. In the second appeal, learned counsel for the appellants contended that since it is admitted by the respondents that subsequent to the filing of the suit, the defendants have got possession of the property, there is no case for granting an injunction and the lower appellate Court erred in thinking that it could not take into account the subsequent events which have a bearing on the question of injunction. The learned counsel, in my opinion, is well-founded in this contention. The suit is for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties as long as they are the lessees and cultivating tenants in respect thereof. In such circumstances, when the properties are not in the possession of the plaintiffs on the date when the decree was passed, I am unable to understand how this decree for injunction could be of any use or operation. Merely because a decree for injunction is granted, the plaintiffs will not be entitled to recover possession of the properties as the suit itself was not decreed for possession. If the plaintiffs had asked for an amendment of the plaint and prayed for possession and injunction on the finding that the plaintiffs are the tenants, they could have got possession and injunction. But I find that in the trial Court itself, though a petition for amendment was filed by them they did not pursue the same when it was returned to them and did not represe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document