Sub-lease cannot be registered as cultivating talent.

The appellant in Second Appeal No.26 of 1983 is a public trust and it is plaintiff in O.S.No.367 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvarur. The respondents in the second appeal are defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit. The petitioner in W.P.No.274 of 1983 is the second defendant in O.S.No.367 of 1980 and the petitioner in W.P.No.544 of 1983 is the third defendant in the said suit. The first respondent in both the writ petitions is the plaintiff in O.S.No.367 of 1980. As the subject matter and the parties to the second appeal and the writ petitions are common, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in the judgment in Second Appeal No.26 of 1983 as per their array in O.S.No.367 of 1980.

2. The suit O.S.No.367 of 1989 was filed by the plaintiff-trust for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, namely, an extent of 3 acres in R.S.Nos.305/2,301/ 9 and 291/6 in Sengalipuram Village, Nannilam Taluk. The case of the plaintiff-trust is as follows. The suit properties belong to the plaintiff-trust. They were leased out to the first defendant by the plaintiff in the year 1968 and he was cultivating the same till Fasli 1389. During Fasli 1389 a suo motu enquiry was taken undertheTamilNaduPublicTrusts(Regu-lation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Special Deputy Collector, Tiruvarur and by order dated 28. 1979 the Special Deputy Collector declared that the first defendant was holding more than the cultivating tenant’s ceiling area of 5 standard acres and directed him to surrender the excess land of 3 acres to the plaintiff-trust. The first defendant voluntarily surrendered the excess land of 3 acres to the plaintiff trust on 2. 1980 and to that effect he has executed a surrender letter in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff took possession of the suit properties on 2. 1980 from the first defendant and there after the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. As defendants 1 to 3 attempted to trespass into the suit properties the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction.

3. Defendants 1 to 3 filed separate written statements raising identical contentions which are as follows: The first defendant is a lessee under the plaintiff trust in respect of the suit properties. He has sub-let item No.1 to the second defendant on 16. 1979 and itemNos.2and3 to the third defendant on 6. 1979 and lease deeds were also executed in triplicate. Defendants 2 and 3 are cultivating tenants in respect of the suit properties contributing their persona! labour and they are entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1955. In the middle of the year 1979, a notice was sent to the first defendant by Special Deputy Collector, Tiruvarur. The first defendant did not attend the enquiry conducted by the Special Deputy Collector. However, on 8. 1980 the plaintiff’s agent wanted a surrender letter to be shown to the authorised officer for closing the proceedings before him. Hence the first defendant signed* a blank paper in two places.

The plaintiff trust never took possession of the suit properties pursuant to the surrender letter purported to have been executed by the first defendant on 2. 1980. Defendants 2 and 3 are recorded as cultivating tenants in the record of tenant rights proceedings. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for permanent injunction.

4. The trial court on the basis of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction prayed for by the plaintiff and consequently decreed the suit O.S.No.367 of 1980. As against the judgment of the trial court defendants 2 and 3 filed an appeal A.S.No.57 of 1982 before the Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai. The appellate court, on a consideration of the entire material