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 dee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document