Person in unlawful possession cannot ask for grant of injunction.

COMMON JUDGMENT

S.A.No.256 of 1983: This Second Appeal is directed against the common Judgment and decree (dated 21.01.1983) in A.S.No.10 of 1981 of District Court, Tiruchirapalli, which arose out of the common Judgment and decree in O.S.No.962 of 1974 of Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli (dated 10.12.1979).

S.A.No.1636 of 1985: This Second Appeal is preferred against the common Judgment and decree (dated 21.01.1983) in A.S.No.87 of 1981 of District Court, Tiruchirapalli, which arose out of the common judgment and decree in O.S.No. 392 of 1975 of Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli (dated 10.12.1979).

2. Before we refer to the facts and the main grounds urged, it is necessary to refer to certain earlier proceedings. For convenience, parties are referred as in their original rank in O.S.No.392 of 1975. Unsuccessful plaintiff, who lost his case before the Lower Appellate Court, is the present appellant. Due to the death of the respondents, earlier both the Second Appeals 256 of 1983 and 1636 of 1985 were dismissed by Justice E.J.BELLIE on 03.07.1992 as abated. Against the order of abatement, appellant preferred C.A.162 of 1993 before the Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal.

3. Civil Appeal Nos.822-823 of 1997

Supreme Court of India

After remand, both the appeals were heard by JUSTICE GOVARDHAN. Finding that Lower Appellate Court proceeded erroneously in placing the burden of proof upon the plaintiff - Subbiah Pillai proving the tenancy, judgments of Lower appellate Court were set aside and both the appeals were allowed. Aggrieved over allowing of both Second Appeals, D2 - Thirunavukkarasu Pillai had preferred these two Appeals before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment on the short grounds,

(i) that no substantial question of law has been framed as mandated under section 100 of C.P.C.;

(ii) allowing the appeals, the matter is remanded to this Court to consider whether any substantial question of law arises from the common impugned judgment.

Thus after the remand, both the appeals are before this Court for fresh disposal.

4. We may straightaway point out that even at the time of admission of the Second Appeals S.A.No.256 of 1983 and S.A.No.1636 of 1985, Substantial questions of law were framed as under:-

S.A.No.256 of 1983:-

Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in law in reversing the entire decree of the Trial Court when only the first plaintiff has preferred the appeal and when the interests of the first plaintiff and that of the second plaintiff are distinct ?

formulated on 17.02.1983.

S.A.No.1636 of 1985:-

(1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in law in reversing the entire decree when only the first defendant alone has preferred an appeal and their interests is distinct ?

(2) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in law in eschewing Ex.A-24, whose genuineness has not even been disputed by the defendants ?

formulated on 30.10.1985.

5. It is fairly conceded by both sides that the above substantial question of law formulated even at the time of admission of the Second Appeals as noted above were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court.

6. Suit property relates to Survey No.46/4 Nanjai - 4.90 Acres Mannachanallur, Lalgudi, Taluk, Trichy District. As suit property is the joint family property of the defendants and they are the owners of the same, D1 - Chandrasekara Pillai was in management and supervision of the suit property and other family properties. Case of the plaintiff is that he had taken the suit property on lease from D1 six years prior to the suit on payment of annual cash rent of Rs.4,200/=. Plaintiff is in possession of the suit property by raising crops as cultivating tenant. In his capacity as the cultivating tenant, plaintiff had also obtained Identification Card for distribution of manure and fertilizers issued by the Panchayat Union. Plaintiff has also been raising loans in Mannachanallur Village Agricultural Cooperative Society f