A cultivating tenant must contribute his own physical labour or that of the members of his family in the cultivation of the land to be entitled to the benefits of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :- The plaintiff in O. S. No. 472 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsif Court. Tuticorin, is the appellant herein. He filed the suit for a declaration that he is the cultivating tenant in respect of the suit properties and for an injunction restraining the defendants, from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same. His case was that the suit properties originally belonged to one Nallaperumal, who died leaving two sons, Chinnakannu Pillai and Sundaram Pillai, that the suit properties came to be allotted to the share of Chinnakannu Pillai, that after his death his sons the defendants 1 to 4 became owners of the same, that he is a cultivating tenant of the suit properties although for the last 40 years since the time of Nallaperumal Pillai, that defendants 1 to 4 with the assistance of defendants 5 and 6 are trying to evict him from the suit lands by force and, that therefore, he was constrained to file the suit for the reliefs set out above.

2. It was contended by defendants 1 to 4 that the plaintiff was a lessee under Nallaperumal Pillai and thereafter under their father, that subsequently he became a tenant under them, that the lease being annual was renewed year after year, that on expiry of the lease in Adi 1967 the plaintiff surrendered possession of the lands, and that, thereafter the 4th and 5th schedule lands had been leased out to the 5th defendant. They also denied that the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant. They also alleged that the plaintiff is a rich man owning houses worth more than one lakh of rupees and a costly car and that he is the President of a panchayat and also doing other businesses. The 5th defendant filed a written statement supporting defendants 1 to 4 and contending that the plaintiff surrendered the suit properties in Adi 1967 and thereafter the 4th and 5th schedule lands had been given to him on lease by defendants 1 to 4. The 6th defendant also contended that the plaintiff surrendered possession of the suit lands to defendants 1 to 4 and as their servant he is supervising the cultivation of the lands.

3. The plaintiff filed a reply statement disputing that he ever surrendered possession of the suit lands to defendants 1 to 4 at any time and that the alleged lease in favour of the fifth defendant of schedule 4 and 5 lands was not true.

4. The trial Court found on its appreciation of the evidence that the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant only in respect of plaint schedules 1 and 2 and that the plaintiff had not surrendered possession of the suit lands as alleged by the defendants. It. therefore, granted a decree for a declaration that the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant of plaint schedules 1 and 2 and for a permanent injunction in respect of the said schedule lands. It also granted an injunction in respect of other schedules on the ground that the plaintiff is entitled to continue in possession till he is evicted by due process of law.

5. On appeal by the defendants, the lower appellate Court had held that the plaintiff is not a cultivating tenant in respect of the plaint schedules 1 and 2 for the reason that he had sub-leased a portion of the leasehold property and that no personal cultivation has been carried on by the plaintiff. It also held that the plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction protecting his possession on the ground that possession has been taken by defendants 1 to 4 long before the institution of the suit and that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit lands on the date of the suit.

6. In this second appeal it is contended by the plaintiff-appellant that the findings rendered by the lower appellate Court are legally unsustainable. It is urged that the sub-lease alleged has not been duly proved and that, in any event, a sub-lease per se will not disentitle him to claim the benefit of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiff also questions the finding of the lower appellate Court on the