Back
2002 Supreme(Mad) 719
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN
S.Kathamuthu - Appellant
Versus
S.Mahalingam - Respondents
Second Appeal Nos.1373 & 1374 of 2002
Decided On : 08 August 2002
The determination of cultivating tenancy and possession, as well as the grant of permanent injunction, falls under the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities and is subject to the Record of Tenancy Rights Act and Cultivating Tenants Protection Act.
Headnote:
Cultivating Tenancy - Permanent Injunction - Record of Tenancy Rights Act - Adangal extract - Exhibits B2 to B6 - Exhibit A1 - Revenue authorities - Cultivating Tenants Protection Act
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant, alleging interference with peaceful possession of the suit property. Both parties claimed to be cultivating tenants. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court allowed the cross-appeal based on the latest adangal extract.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found in favor of the respondent, holding that the latest adangal extract prevailed over earlier documents and granted the permanent injunction. The court also emphasized that the issue of cultivating tenancy should be decided by the revenue authorities.
Issues: The issues included the possession and entitlement to permanent injunction, the relevance of adangal extract, and the non-joinder of the property owner in the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the latest adangal extract was crucial in determining possession and granting the injunction. It also emphasized that the issue of cultivating tenancy falls under the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities.
Final Decision: The second appeals were dismissed, allowing the parties to seek relief from the revenue authorities independently.
The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.95 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikkal, laid by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction, alleging that the appellant/defendant, who is nonetheless the brother of the respondent/plaintiff, was attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent/plaintiff, who was enjoying the suit property as a cultivating tenant as evident from the Adangal extract which was marked as exhibit A1.
2. The suit was resisted by the appellant/defendant based on exhibits B2 to B6.
3. Upon the above rival contentions, the learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikal, framed the following issues:
(i) Whether it is true that the plaintiff is the cultivating tenant of the suit property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of presentation of the plaint?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order of permanent injunction as prayed by him?
(iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment and decree as prayed for?
4. To substantiate the contention, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1, apart from another independent witnesses, viz. one Anandaraj as PW2 and marked Adangal certificate issued by the Revenue Inspector, Nedungadu, dated 13.10.1995, as exhibit A1.
5. The appellant/defendant examined himself as DW1 and placed reliance on exhibits B2 to B6 referred to above, which are admittedly of the year 1986 to 1989.
6. The learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikal, by decree and judgment dated 27.2.2001 in O.S.No.95 of 2001, appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, holding that both the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant were cultivating tenants of the suit property and neither of them had proved their exclusive possession over the suit property, in the light of the documents exhibits B2 to B6, which admittedly carried the name of the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant as the cultivating tenants, and finding the balance of convenience was not in favour of the respondent/plaintiff alone, decided both the issues against him and dismissed the suit.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 27.2.2001 made in O.S.No.95 of 2001, the appellant/defendant preferred A.S.No.16 of 2001 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Karaikal, against the finding that the appellant/defendant was not in exclusive possession of the suit property and the respondent/plaintiff filed Cross Appeal No.23 of 2001 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Karaikal.
8. The learned Additional District Judge, Karaikal, by decree and judgment dated 20.11.2001 in A.S.No.16 of 2001 and Cross Appeal No.23 of 201, finding that the exhibits B2 to B6 relied upon by the appellant/defendant were related to the year 1986 to 1989, whereas exhibit A1, the adangal extract, relied upon the respondent/plaintiff was related to year 1995, which corroborated the independent evidence of PW2, who deposed that the respondent/plaintiff alone was cultivating the suit land, set aside the finding of the learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikal, that the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant were the joint cultivating tenants of the suit property and neither of them were in exclusive possession of the suit property and further held that the learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikal, failed to appreciate exhibit A1 dated 13.10.1995, the adangal extract issued by the revenue authorities, which was the latest document, and would prevail over the documents, viz. exhibits B2 to B6 related to the year 1986 to 1989, dismissed the appeal and allowed the Cross Appeal. Hence, the above Second Appeals.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant raises the following substantial questions of law.
(a) Whether the Appellate Authority erred in decreeing the suit in toto against the plaintiff's admission in B1 and B11 that the appellant is in exclusive possession o
