The main legal point established in the judgment is the rebuttable nature of the legal presumption under Section 15 of Act X of 1969 and the duty of the appellate court to re-evaluate evidence before reversing the trial court's findings.

The defendants in O.S.No.47 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Srivaikundam are the appellants before this Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the suit.

3. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.47 of 1986 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his enjoyment and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

4. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.47 of 1986 is that the suit schedule properties belong to Mary Anaballah Luther Jesudasan who is in Kula Lumpur, Malaysia. The plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the power of attorney agent of the above said Mary Anaballah Luther Jesudasan and on that basis, he has been cultivating the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff also registered his name as Cultivating Tenant in the Government records under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record and Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as Act X of 1969). In a property dealing, some problem arose between the plaintiff and the first defendant resulting in the plaintiff giving a police complaint against the first defendant. To defend the case, the plaintiffs aunty sought the help of the second defendant. At that time, the second defendant not only received a hefty sum of money from the plaintiff, but, also received blank stamp papers signed by the plaintiff and his aunty by stating that they were necessary for the purpose of conducting their criminal case. As the second defendant was not proper in the money dealings, the relationship between the plaintiff and the second defendant strained. To wreck vengeance on the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 colluded together and using the blank stamp papers containing the signatures, documents were created by the defendants as if the plaintiff sub-leased the suit properties to use second defendant on 15-02-1985 and the second defendant sub-leased the same properties on 15-11-1985 to one Vedanayagam who in turn sub-leased the very same property to the first defendant on 22-11-1985. All the above three documents were fabricated and created by the second defendant using the blank stamp papers given by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, there was no necessity to sub-lease the suit schedule property. On the basis of the fabricated documents, the defendants tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for the aforesaid relief.

5. The suit was defended by the defendants by filing a written statement wherein they admitted that the suit schedule properties were under the occupation of the plaintiff as a cultivating tenant till 14-02-1985. But, on 15-02-1985, the plaintiff sub-leased the properties to the second defendant along with the original lease deeds entered into by the plaintiff with the power of attorney of the owner and also the order of the Tahsildar recording that the plaintiff is the cultivating tenant. It is further stated by the defendants that the second defendant on 15-11-1985 sub-leased the properties to one Vedanayagam who in turn sub-leased the properties to the first defendant on 22-11-1985. On and from 22-11-1985, the first defendant has been cultivating the suit schedule properties. The defendants denied that the three documents dated 15-02-1985, 15-11-1985 and 22-11-1985 are not fabricated documents and they were executed by the plaintiff himself on his own volition.

6. Before the trial Court, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and documents A1 to A19 were marked on their side. Similarly, both the defendants examined themselves as DW.1 and DW.2 and Exs.B1 to B18 were marked on their side. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the suit property was under the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of injunction?

3) Whether