The embargo under Section 16-A of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969, does not oust the civil court jurisdiction in its entirety and at all circumstances.

1. The above second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Sirkali dated 211. 1980 in O.S.NO.95 of 1977.

2. The suit O.S.No.95 of 1977 was filed by the respondent Mutt praying for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit, properties by the plaintiff, and in the alternative if it is found by the Court that the plaintiff was not in possession on the date of the suit for recovery of possession. The claim of the plaintiff in substance was that the suit properties have not been leased out to anyone and the defendants were not in possession of the suit properties as tenants much less cultivating tenants. The defendants have filed a written statement and it was contended that the suit properties have been let out to the first defendant’s father for planting and rearing fruit bearing trees and also cultivation of dry crops, that the first defendant’s father had planted and raised tamarind and mango trees besides chillies and other Vegetable crops and has been taking the profits for himself, that the tenancy started in the year 1935 and the rent was fixed at Rs.6/- per annum and that the rent was being paid by serving the mutt works in the suit village and the same was never paid in cash till the death of the defendant’s father. It is claimed that after the death of the father, the first defendant is continuing in the tenancy by holding over the same. On this nature of pleadings, the suit was tried and the trial Court merely finding that the defendants were in possession and that they were also cultivating the suit properties by their own physical labour, came to the conclusion that the first defendant is a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit property and, therefore, dismissed the suit.

3. On appeal before the lower appellate Court the learned Subordinate Judge observed that the defendants have nowhere claimed in the written statement filed that they were contributing their own physical labour and the labour of the members of their family and in the absence of any such pleadings, it is not known as to on what basis the findings of the trial Court have been arrived at. The lower appellate Court also observed that the defendants have not chosen to plead the necessary facts and prove their claim to enable them to avail of the protection under Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1961. The lower appellate court also found that the trial Court came to the conclusion that the first defendant was a tenant on the only ground that the lands have been in possession of the first defendant and his father for a long time but at the same time the lower appellate Court was not able to appreciate the said findings of the trial Court in the absence of any entry recording the defendants as tenants in respect of the land in question in the Record of Tenancy for the village. The lower appellate Court further recorded a positive finding that taking advantage of the fact that the first defendant worked as

“he tried to usurp the possession of the land and claimed tenancy rights and that the records produced by the Mutt for having conducted an auction and the troubles created by the tenants cannot be lightly brushed aside. Finally, the lower appellate Court held that there was absolutely no materials whatever produced to substantiate the claim of tenancy and that therefore the suit was decreed. Aggrieved, the above second appeal has been filed.

4. At the time of admitting the appeal, it was felt necessary to consider whether the burden of proof has been wrongly shifted to the appellant to prove their entitlement for protection under the Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1961, and whether the lower appellate Court has given detailed reasons for not accepting the testimony of some of the witnesses examined in the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants i