The appellants in the Second Appeal filed the suit for injunction on the ground that they are cultivating tenants of the first defendant-respondent, under Madras Act XXV of 1955 as amended by Act XIV of 1956. and as such they are entitled to remain in possession of the suit properties. The plea of the first defendant is that the plaintiff committed default in payment of rent for fasli 1366 and did not have the means to pay the same when a demand was made by him for arrears of rent and so the first plaintiff surrendered possession of the leasehold lands on 20th April, 1957. Though the suit lands included S. No. 189/2 and S. No. 201/1, the plea of the first defendant is that they do not belong to him and this plea has been accepted by the Courts below and there is no dispute about it. The Courts below have referred to the remaining lands alone as the suit lands. Ever since the alleged surrender, the first defendant claims to have been cultivating the suit lands as pannai lands with the help of the second defendant in whose favour he has executed a power of attorney. Defendants 2 and 3 supported the claim of the first defendant and denied having interfered with the posse