Filing of civil suit not barred.

Defendant in O.S. No.100 of 1982, on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Tenkasi is the appellant.

2. Respondent herein filed the above suit for the following reliefs: “(a) pass a decree of declaration of the plaintiff’s right to be in possession as cultivating tenant in the plaint schedule lands;

(b) pass a consequential decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant restraining him and his agents from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule lands permanently;

(c) award the costs of this suit to the plaintiff; and

(d) grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

3. In the plaint schedule, two items are included. They are, 60 Cents in Survey No.46 and 1-70 acres in Survey No.48 with all trees therein [Italics]. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaint schedule lands belong to the defendant, and the plaintiff is cultivating the said lands with the help of his family members. He is a recorded tenant and his name has been registered in the Record of Tenancy Rights. He has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule lands for the past about 26 years, and all these years he has been paying 20 ‘Kottahs’ of paddy as annual rent to the defendant. He has not committed any default. It is said that he has raised coconut trees in a portion of the plaint schedule lands soon-after he took lease of the property with the permission and on the request of the landlord/ defendant. It is further said that the plaintiff is enjoying the coconut trees as one of the conditions of the lease and the ‘pattom’ of 20 ‘Kottahs’ of paddy cover the land in which coconut trees and ara cannot trees have been raised by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has further stated that on 3. 1979, defendant proposed to take away the portion of the land in which coconuts stand from his possession and lease it to some other person, and also threatened to evict the plaintiff forcibly in case of objection. It is said that the defendant has no manner of right whatsoever to dispossess the plaintiff of the plaint schedule lands and the trees therein. The plaintiff is also enjoying the lands and trees owned by the defendants and lying adjacent to the plaint lands. Plaintiff has taken steps to record his name as tenant with regard to that piece of land. He took possession of that adjacent piece of land with an extent of 37 cents subsequent to March, 1973. It is on the basis of these allegations, the suit was filed for the above reliefs and court-fee was paid under Sec.25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

4. The defendant, appellant herein, filed a written statement stating that the description of property is not correct and in the 60 cents and 1.70 acres situated in Survey Nos.46 and 48, there are no trees. The trees are situated only in the adjoining portion, and improvements was not the subject-matter of Record of Tenancy Rights proceedings. He said that adjoining 1 acre 70 cents of land, the appellant is owning another property included in Survey No.47, and in that property there are various coconut trees which belong to him exclusively and the same are not included in the tenancy claimed by the plaintiff.

5. On the above pleadings, the trial Court raised the following issues for consideration:

“(1) Whether the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant of the plaint schedule lands and whether he is in possession and enjoyment of the same?

.(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction?

.(3) Whether the trees are included in the lease?

.(4) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?”

6. The trial court examined the parties and marked Ex. A-1. After examination of parties, a Commissioner was deputed, who prepared Ex.C-1 Report and Exs.C-2 and C-3 Plans. It camp to the conclusion that on the basis of Ex.A-1, plaintiff is a cultivating ten