JUDGMENT.-The plaintiff, who succeeded in the trial Court but failed in the lower appellate Court, is the appellant. He filed the suit for possession of agricultural lands. He had obtained the sale deed, Exhibit A-1, from the Court in execution of a compromise decree for specific performance obtained by him against the defendants in O.S. No. 133 of 1959 on the file of the Sub-Court,Tiruchirapalli. The defendants in that suit are not parties to the present action. The appellant obtained possession of the properties covered by Exhibit A-1 through the Court in E. P.No: 193 of 1964 on 21st September, 1964 with some standing crops which were said to be two months old, as seen from the delivery receipt, Exhibit A-2. His case was that thereafter at the instance of defendants 3 and 4, defendants 1 and 2 trespassed on the property on 21st October, 1964 and cut and carried away the crops. He, therefore, filed the suit for recovery of possession of the properties with past and future mesne profits.

2. The second defendant alone resisted the suit contending that he was a tenant of a portion of the suit property under the original owner under the insufficiently stamped and unregistered lease deed, Exhibit B-1, and that he continued to be in possession and could not be evicted in view of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and was liable to pay only the rents. The lease deed, Exhibit B-1, which was insufficiently stamped had been validated by payment of the necessary stamp duty and penalty and has been relied upon by the Court below for the collateral purpose of showing the nature of possession of the second defendant.

3. The trial Court held that in view of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act the lease under Exhibit B-1 is not valid 1and would not affect the appellant’s right to recover possession of the property, and decreed the suit. But, on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the lease by the owners of the property pending the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell these properties to the appellant was valid and entitled the second defendant to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act and he allowed the appeal and modified the decree of the trial Court by dismissing the suit in respect of the western moiety in the plaint schedule properties which alone was in the possession of the second defendant. Hence this second appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the second defendant submits that the owners of the agricultural lands, who were the defendants in the said O.S. No. 133 of 1959, had title to the properties until the execution of the sale deed, Exhibit A-1, in pursuance of the decree for specific performance of the contract and were, therefore, entitled to lease a portion of the properties to the second defendant and he is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act, and section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act will not apply. He relied upon certain decisions in support of his contention.

5. Pandrang Row, J., has held in Darbha Venkata Somayajulu v. Patula Sathiraju1, that where a mortgagor had granted a lease of the mortgaged property after a suit had been brought to enforce the mortgage but before the decree, and the mortgagee, applied for appointment of a Receiver and the Court made an order directing the lessee to deposit a sum of money in Court every year as annual rent, and the properties were sold in execution and purchased by the mortgagee who again applied for appointment of a Receiver claiming that the crops belonged to him after the sale, that the lease was not affected by the rule of lis pendens and the mortgages-purchaser acquired only the rights of his mortgagor and could therefore only claim his share represented by the rent and not the entire properties. Sen, J., has held in Ram Dayal v. Asghar Khan1, that where during the pendency of a mortgage suit or proceedings consequential upon a decree passed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document