The Court must consider all relevant evidence and circumstances, incidentally determine the Plaintiff's status as a cultivating tenant, and avoid relying solely on subsequent documents for granting Injunction.

Challenging concurrent findings of courts below, granting Permanent Injunction in favour of Respondent/Plaintiff, unsuccessful Third Defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.

2. Various Items of landed properties in Kadapparai Village, Karur Taluk are the Suit Properties. First Defendant was owner of the Suit Properties. Appellant/Third Defendant has purchased the Suit Properties from the First Defendant under Ex.B.1 – Sale Deed dated 03.06.1977.

3. Case of Plaintiff is that the First Defendant leased out the property to the Second Defendant under Ex.A.2 – Lease Deed (unregistered) dated 02.04.1974. The Second Defendant sub-leased the properties to the Plaintiff under Ex.A.1 (unregistered) dated 05.11.1974. According to the Plaintiff, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as sub-lessee. Alleging interference with his possession by Third Defendant in collusion with Defendants 1 and 2, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Permanent Injunction.

4. Subsequent to the Suit, the Plaintiff was recorded as cultivating Tenant under the Tamil Nadu Record of Cultivating Tenancy Act in the year 1986 under Ex.A.7 dated 24.11.1986.

5. D-1 is the Father-in-law of the Plaintiff. D-2 is close relative of the Plaintiff. D-1 and D-2 did not contest the Suit and remained exparte.

6. Denying the Plaint averments, Appellant/D-3 filed Written Statement contending that from the date of his purchase under Ex.B.1, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Properties. According to D-3, Plaintiff being Son-in-law of the First Defendant colluded with Defendants 1 and 2 and concocted Exs.A.1 and A.2 for the purpose of filing the Suit and harassing D-3. It was further alleged that relationship between D-3 and the Plaintiff and D-1 was strained.

7. On the above pleadings, four issues were framed in the Trial Court. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.11. On the side of the Third Defendant, D-3 examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.11.

8. Mainly placing reliance upon Ex.A.7 under which Plaintiff was recorded as cultivating tenant, the Trial Court concluded that the Plaintiff is in possession of the properties and hence, he was held entitled to Permanent Injunction. It was held that D-3 has not produced documents like Adangal, showing his possession. The Suit was decreed and Permanent Injunction was granted mainly on the premise that the Plaintiff was registered as cultivating tenant in Ex.A.7.

9. Aggrieved by the Judgment, the Third Defendant/Appellant has preferred Appeal in A.S.No.99 of 1988. Laying emphasis upon Ex.A.7 – Record of Tenancy, the lower Appellate Court confirmed the Judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the Appeal.

10. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following Substantial Question of law:-

"Have not the courts below exceeded the jurisdiction in declaring the tenancy set by the Respondent/Plaintiff?"

During the course of hearing the arguments, it was felt necessary to formulate the following Additional Substantial Questions of Law:-

(i) Have not the courts below committed an error of law in holding that the Respondent/Plaintiff has proved his possession to entitle himself to a decree for Permanent Injunction?

(ii) Have not the courts below committed an error of law in not considering the vital documents viz., Patta issued by the Government in favour of the Appellant and Electricity Charges Bills produced by the Appellant to prove his possession?

11. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned Counsel for Appellant has contended that Courts below have committed serious errors of law in placing reliance on Ex.A.7, which Order is per-se illegal and subsequent to the Suit. Learned Counsel for the Appellant inter-alia raised the following contentions:-

"The Plaintiff is not the cultivating Tenant under Section 2(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act;

"As per the decision in 2003 (4) L.W. 129, the Plaintiff has to prove that he continues to be in posse