The tenant lost protection under the Act 1955 by wilfully denying the title of the landlords, and the court upheld the settlement deed and Will as valid documents.

K. Govindarajan, J.

1. Theabove Appeals arise out of the suit filed in O. S. Nos. 1290/1979, 340/1980 and 341/1980.

2. O. S. No. 1290/1979 filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 7, namely, Easwaramoorthy, Parvathy, Kamalaveni, Ganapathi Gounder, Kandaswamy, Mylswami and Chellammal @ Selvarathinam, against one Muruga Gounder, Rajarathinam and Jothimani seeking for partition of the suit properties described in item No. 1 and for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant-Muruga Gounder from using or otherwise diverting the water in the well in item No. 1 of the property so as to irrigate item No. 2 of the property and for a mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to remove the underground pipes laid near the well in item No. 1 of the property within a time to be fixed by the Court, failing compliance by the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs have to be permitted jointly or severally to remove the underground pipes at the cost of the 1st defendant.

3. Item No. 1 of the property is described as Survey No. 275 measuring 5 acres. According to the plaintiffs in the said suit, the suit properties originally belonged to one Koundammal who died on 16. 7. 1970 leaving her three daughters Palaniammal, Velammal and Thayammal. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the son and daughter of Palaniammal respectively. Third plaintiff and third defendant are the daughters of the 2nd plaintiff. Plaintiffs 5 to 7 are the sons and daughters of Thayammal. 4th plaintiff is the husband of Thayammal. Thayammal died on 5. 4. 1970 leaving behind plaintiffs 4 to 7 as her heirs. 2nd defendant is the son of Velammal and also the son-in-law of 1st defendant. The said Koundammal executed a deed of gift in favour of Thayammal giving her one acre of land in Schedule 1. The said gift deed was accepted and acted upon by putting Thayammal in possession of the property. After the death of Thayammal, plaintiffs 4 to 7 have become her heirs and they are entitled to the said property. Koundammal executed another Will under which plaintiffs 1 to 3, 6 and 7 and defendants 2 and 3 have become legattees. Since the 1st defendant was wrongfully diverting the water from the suit well for irrigating his own land in S. No. 287/1 with the result the water supply in the well was affected and also the motor and pump set. On that basis the plaintiffs sought for permanent injunction against the 1st defendant. On the basis of the Will, the plaintiffs have also come forward with the prayer for partition. With respect to the claim of the 1st defendant as a cultivating tenant of the suit property, the plaintiffs have come forward with the plea that the 1st defendant is not in possession of the suit property. It is specifically stated that the 2nd defendant who is the son-in-law of the 1st defendant has colluded with him and fabricated false records.

4. The 1st defendant filed a separate written statement stating that he is the cultivating tenant. He claims that he became the owner of 2. 03-1/2 acres in S. F. No. 275 together with a half share in the well with three service connections. The 1st defendant categorically denied the execution of the gift deed and it is stated that the gift deed was not accepted and acted upon. Similarly, the 1st defendant denies the execution of the Will by Koundammal. He claims that he is the cultivating tenant of the land. It is also stated that the plaintiffs are only entitled to division of the suit land on the basis of the gift deed or Will.

5. The2nd defendant also filed a written statement denying the averments contained in the plaint.

6. The 1st defendant in O. S. No. 1290/1979, namely, Muruga Gounder, filed a suit in O. S. No. 1695/1979, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore which was subsequently transferred to Sub-Court, Coimbatore and renumbered as O. S. No. 340/1980. According to the said Muruga Gounder, by virtue of a registered lease deed of the year 1951, the said Koundammal leased out the suit property for a period of five y