1. The plaintiff who succeeded before the trial court and lost before the lower appellate court is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit properties are two in number. They are 1.60 acres of wet lands in R.S.No.41/6 and 0.52 acre of wet lands in R.S.No. 42/3, totally of an extent of 12. acres in Pavattakkudy Village, Nannilam Taluk, Nagapattinam District.

2. The suit was filed on 5. 1995 by the appellant against the respondents for a permanent injunction restraining them, their men, servants, agents, etc. from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties or trespassing upon the same till the appellant was evicted by the competent court under due process of law.

3. The material averments in the plaint are as follows:

The second respondent was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for the past several years under some sale agreement with the five sons of one Varadarajan. Under Ex.A-1 dated, 15. 1991 there was a lease agreement entered into between the second respondent and the appellant as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (Act 25 of 1955), as per the terms of which it was agreed that the appellant would pay or give 32 kalams of samba paddy and 12 bundles of straw for each fasli. Ever since the date of lease the appellant had been in possession of the properties contributing his own physical labour and promptly delivering the rent to the second respondent and also paying the land revenue to the Government. On 20.3.1992 the appellant paid the rent for fasli 1401 as evidenced by Ex.A- 3, Exs.A-7 and A-8 are the kist receipts for faslis 1401 and 1402. On 14. 1993 both the respondents came and told the appellant that he should not cultivate the lands for the ensuing fasli. The first respondent told the appellant that under some court decree the suit properties had been allotted to his share and that of Kamala and her two sons and four daughters, all of whom were in Singapore. The second respondent also told the appellant to stop work, as otherwise both would forcibly trespass upon the land and commence cultivation. The appellant had already filed a petition No. 26/93 under Ex.A-4 before the Record Tahsildar impleading the second respondent and Ramaswamy, Radhakrishnan, Perumal, Vadivel and Kasinathan, all of whom were sons of Varadarajan and the title-holders of the lands, to records his name as a tenant. In those proceedings, notice was ordered under Ex.A-5 dated, 24. 1993 and it stood posted on 5. 1993.

The second respondent was the landlord as defined under Act 25 of 1995 and he was entitled to evict the appellant invoking the provisions of the said Act. The appellant had a right to be in possession as a cultivating tenant. It was a statutory right and it had to be protected. There was no denial of title by the appellant. The respondents were conspiring and colluding and jointly advancing the threats. A single suit had been filed as common questions of law and facts would arise. The cause of action for the suit arose on 15. 1991 when the lease deed Ex.A-1 was executed and on 14. 1993 when the respondents advanced their threats to commit trespass.

4. The second respondent herein was the first defendant. He filed a written statement contending as follows:

The sale agreement between him and the sons of Varadharajan was true. The lease agreement Ex.A-1 was also true. The terms contained therein were true. The appellant was in possession ever since fasli 1401 cultivating the lands. The receipts Exs.A- 2 and A-3 were issued by him to the appellant. It was not true to say that he along with the second respondent told the appellant not to cultivate the lands. He was also not aware as to on what basis the second respondent threatened the appellant. For himself he never threatened the appellant. The Record Tahsildar, Nannilam, recorded the appellant’s name as tenant. He was a party to the proceedings. There was no conspiracy with the s