JUDGMENT.— One Thangavelu Naicker was appointed by two brothers Muthukumara Chettiar and Somasundaram Chettiar to be a watchman or kavalkarar for their account cocoanut thope, Pulianthope and other clusters of trees in two survey numbers in which the own distinct portions. It is common ground that Thangavelu Naicker was paid Rs. 40 every year and was also entitled to take the ripe cocoanut leaves. His duties as kavalkarar included gathering, plucking and delivering the fruits of tamarind trees. In 1963, Thangavelu Naicker moved the Authorised Officer functioning under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural’ Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act for a declaration that he was a cultivating tenant under the two brothers. He did not succeed in obtaining an order in his favour and an appeal from the decision of the Authorised Officer also failed; In those proceedings, it was held that Thangavelu Naicker was not a tenant, much less a cultivating tenant of Muthukumara Chettiar and Somasundaram Chettiar. Thereafter, Thangavelu Naicker filed O. S. No. 191 of 1972 against the owners of the property, asking for a permanent injunction restraining the owners from evicting him from the premises. It may be observed that in the cocoanut thope, Somasundaram Chettiar had raised a hut and in that hut Thangavelu Naicker was permitted to reside for purposes of looking after the thopes. Thangavelu Naicker accordingly claimed in the suit that he was entitled to ownership of the hut and the underlying land as a kudiyiruppu. He invoked the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Confirment of Ownership) Act (XL of 1971). The suit was resisted by the owners of the thope and the superstructure on the score that after the adverse decision by the duly constituted authorities and the Tribunals under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1961, Thangavelu Naicker was disentitled to file a suit for injunction against them. It was also pleaded that the Madras Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1971, was not applicable to Thangavelu Naicker or to the suit property in question.

2. The learned District Munsif recorded a finding that Thangavelu Naicker was not a tenant of the land, but he was a kavalkarar of the cocoanut and other thopes under the owner Muthukumara Chettiar and Soma-sundaram Chettiar. But the learned District Munsif held that since there were disputes between Thangavelu Naicker and the owners as early as in 1970 on the question of tenancy rights, he must be held to have ceased to be a watchman or kavalkarar. On this basis, the learned District Munsif held that Thangavelu Naicker was disentitled from invoking the provisions of the Act since the said Act was applicable only to an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer who was in occupation of a kudiyiruppu on 19th June, 1971. In this case, according to the finding of the learned District Munsif, he had ceased to be the kavalkarar and, therefore, ceased to be the licensee even in 1970.

3. On appeal, the findings of the learned District Munsif were substantially concurred in by the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam. The learned Subordinate Judge endorsed the finding of the District Munsif that Thangavelu Naicker’s occupation as a licensee of the kudiyiruppu must be deemed to have been cancelled since he had raised disputes with the owners of the land claiming to be entitled to tenancy right therein. The learned Subordinate Judge referred to section 61 of the Easements Act and held that the licence given by the owners to Thangavelu Naicker to reside in the kudiyiruppu must be deemed to have been revoked by implication the moment disputes arose between the parties. In the result, concurring with the findings of the learned District Munsif, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal and the suit filed by the plaintiff.

4. Thangavelu Naicker has brought this second appeal before this Court against the decisions of the Courts below.

5. Mr. M. Kalyanasundaram, lear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document