JUDGMENT: The appeal arises out of O.S. No.142 of 1986 filed by the respondents herein against the appellant for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from bringing the suit property to public auction on 23.10.1986, or on any other date and from interfering with their possession in respect of the suit properties. The respondents based their right to such a relief claiming that they were cultivating tenants in respect of the suit properties. C.R.P. No.2278 of 1994 arises against the order of the Revenue Court, Madurai in P.T. No.284 of 1999 granting the respondents herein permission to deposit the current rent and arrears of rents under Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant’s Arrears of Rent Relief Act 38 of 1990 (Act 38 of 1990 in short). The decision in both the matters will largely depend upon whether the respondents are entitled to any protection as cultivating tenants. The appeal is taken up first.

2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The suit properties are topes. One Gurusamy Raja (G.R. in short) was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as a cultivating tenant under a registered lease deed dated 29.5.1957. The respondents are his legal heirs. Under this deed the suit properties and nanja lands are leased out to the said G.R. He continued in possession and enjoyment of the same contributing his physical labour and that of his family members. The lease was periodically renewed until 30.6.1963; the respondents wanted the lease deed to be renewed. Then, the appellant herein requested him to surrender the nanjalands and to retain the suit properties. G.R. surrendered the nanja lands alone. On 20.11.1963, the appellant herein issued a notice that there will be a public auction of the suit properties. G.R., filed O.S. No.55 of 1963 before, the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram for a declaration that the lease of the suit property is valid and for an injunction against the defendant from holding auction of the lease of the suit property and from evicting the plaintiff otherwise than by due process of law. The suit was decreed on 9.11.1964 and there was no appeal there against. Subsequently, on 23.9.1969, a fresh lease deed was obtained in respect of the suit property. Ignoring the rights of G.R. the appellant executed a lease deed in favour of one Sankarapandy Thevar. So G.R. filed O.S. No.54 of 1970 for a bare injunction. The suit was decreed on 31.7.1972. The appeal, A.S. No.20 of 1974 was dismissed on 6.8.1974. Against that a second appeal S.A. No.302 of 1975 was filed and that was also dismissed on 14.11.1977. The Special Leave Petition was also rejected. Therefore, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.54 of 1970 became final and absolute. Pending A.S. No.20 of 1974, G.R. died; the respondents were brought on record as L.Rs. Meanwhile, the appellant filed O.S. No.79 of 1974 before the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram for recovery of arrears of rent. In that suit, inter alia two issues were raised; whether G.R. was entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Cultivation Tenants Protection Act 25 of 1955 (Act 25 of 1955 in short) and whether the Act was applicable to the suit properties. The suit was decreed and the learned Judge held that the appellants were not entitled to raise the two issues referred to above, since they were barred by res judicata. Against this, the respondents filed A.S. No.884 of 1979 and the appellants filed cross-objection. By the judgment dated 26.2.1980, the High Court confirmed the decree for arrears of rent and the question whether the respondents are cultivating tenants was left open. On 5.8.1986, a fresh lease deed was executed and the respondents are in possession pursuant to that, cultivating the suit properties by raising plantain, sugarcane, paddy, digging wells and enjoying the usufructs of the trees. Since at this juncture, a notice of public auction has been sent by the appellants herein, the suit came to be filed.

3. The appellants herein filed their written statement d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document