The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred under Section 23 of the Kudiyiruppu Act to decide any dispute arising under Section 4 of the Act.

(Second Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4.10.1993 made in A.S.No. 58 of 1992 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, against the judgment and decree dated 29.9.1992 made in O.S.No: 1659 of 1987 on the file of the Learned District Munsi, Chidambaram.)

The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property and for arrears of rent. According to the plaintiff-Dargha, the suit property belongs to the Dargha and the defendant has been put into possession as a tenant on 1.6.1974 for a monthly rent of Rs.10/= for a period of one year. Even after the expiry of the tenancy agreement, the defendant is in possession of the suit property. The defendant is in arrears of rent for a period of 13 months. Since the period of tenancy has expired and also he is in default of payment of monthly rent, the plaintiff filed the suit for the said reliefs.

3. The defendant filed a written statement contending that this defendant has constructed a house by spending Rs.5000/= in the suit property. His predecessors have been in possession of the suit property even prior to the tenancy agreement dated 1.8.1974 i.e., from 1960 onwards. The defendant has been regularly paying the monthly rent. The period of tenancy has not come to an end, nor the tenancy agreement has been terminated. After the defendant paid the rent the plaintiff has executed a fresh tenancy agreement. The defendant is a poor agricultural labour and he has no other residence except this Kudiyiruppu and thus he is entitled to the benefit of the Kudiyiruppu Act. The defendant is also ready to purchase the suit land for a sale consideration of Rs.2000/=. The plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of possession in view of the Kudiyiruppu Act.

4. On the above pleadings and on hearing the learned counsel appeared on either side and on a perusal of the evidence both oral and documentary, the trial court dismissed the suit holding that the civil court cannot go in to the issue of entitlement under the Kudiyiruppu Act. On appeal, by the plaintiff, the first appellate court granted the suit reliefs by allowing the appeal. As against the same the defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.

5. At the time of admission, this court framed the following substantial questions of law in this Second Appeal:-

"(i) Whether the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction of occupant of a Kudiyiruppu in view of the Bar under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kuduyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act (XL of 1971)?

(ii) Whether the non framing of issues and failure to give finding on the requirement of owner occupation and willful default by the courts below is correct?

(iii) The burden of proof shifted on the appellant to establish whether he is an agriculturist occupant on the suit site is justifiable in view of the Explanation I for Clause (8) of Section 2 of the Act XL of 1971?"

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant contended that the defendant/tenant is still in possession of the suit property. The plaint itself says that the defendant is an agriculturist. AS per section 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Occupants (Protection) Kudiyirruppu Act, 1971, whether a person is an agriculturist or agricultural labour and whether he is entitled to the benefits under the said Act are all to be decided only by the Authorised Officer. The Patta, Ex.B.10 also shows that the defendant is doing agricultural work. It is also admitted that for the past 27 years the defendant has been in possession of the suit land.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff contended that as rightly held by the first appellate court the defendant is not an agriculturist or agricultural labour and he is not entitled to the benefits under the Act. He also contended that the suit property is measuring nearly 8 cents of land and it is almost