1. This second appeal is focussed by the sixth defendant, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 26.07.2006 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode in A.S.No.16 of 2006 confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2005 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode in O.S.No.1517 of 2004.

2. The parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A summation and summarisation of the facts giving rise to the filing of this second appeal and which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

a] The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

- to pass a decree granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, assigns and agents in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties till the plaintiffs are evicted from the suit properties under due process of law.

- to direct the defendants to pay costs.(extracted as such)

b] Written statement was filed by the sixth defendant resisting the suit.

c] Whereupon issues were framed. On the side of the plaintiffs, the third plaintiff examined himself as PW1 along with PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A8. On the side of the defendant, the sixth defendant examined himself as DW1 and marked Exs.B1 to B14.

d] Ultimately the trial court decreed the suit. As against which, appeal was filed by the defendants 2,3,4 and 6 for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.

4. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, this Second Appeal has been filed by the D6/4th appellant on various grounds suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

a. Whether the courts below have committed an error in holding that the plaintiffs being the sons of the original tenant is entitled to claim the status of cultivating tenants especially when there is no oral or documentary evidence to prove their contribution of physical labour to claim the status as cultivating tenants and further more the tenancy is not heritable in nature?

b. Whether the courts below are right in law in overlooking the admission made by PW1 which would go against his own case, particularly when the appointment of watchman, the management and the usage of the land by the defendants have been categorically admitted in the evidence, however the courts below have wrongly shifted the burden of proof on the defendants unmindful of the settled proposition of law?

c. Whether the findings of the courts below in holding that the plaintiffs are cultivating tenants is legally sustainable in law especially when the plaintiffs have not proved their case independently and they cannot take advantage of the weakness in the defence by relying upon some stray sentences in the evidence of DW1, more particularly the plaintiffs are permanently employed in the postal Department?

(extracted as such)

5. After hearing both sides, I am of the considered view that the following substantial questions of law could be framed:

1. Whether both the courts below failed to decide the lis adhering to the principles governing the burden of proof?

2. Whether both the courts below in the absence of clinching legal evidence to prove the alleged possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property, decided the lis in their favour?

3. Whether the judgments and decrees of both the courts below are bad for misreading of the evidence and applying wrongly the law relating to evidence in proving the possession of the suit property?

4. Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgments and decrees of both the courts below?

6. Heard both sides on the aforesaid substantial questions of law.

7. A 'resume' of facts, which are admitted or at least undeniable would run thus:

(i) The defendants are the land owners in respect of the suit property. The plaintif