1. The defendant/ devasthanam in the suit is the appellant herein. The respondent filed the suit O.S.No.650 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Kumbakonam for bare injunction stating that on 31.3.1969 he entered into a lease agreement in respect of the suit property and pursuant to which he has to covert the land into a coconut thope and thereafter surrender possession to the defendant Devasthanam. The lease period is five years. The respondent can cultivate intermediary crops and pay a sum of Rs.1,800 by way of annual lease to the appellant Devasthanam. As per the said agreement, the respondent planted 600 coconut saplings of which 571 are new well grown trees. The number of yielding trees are only 151. Even though the lease period agreed upon was five years, the respondent continued to be lessee till the date of filing of the suit and he has also paid the lease amount regularly without any arrears. While so, the appellant Devasthanam brought the thope for auction on 9.7.1981. Hence, the suit has been filed for a bare injunction as the respondent incurred an expense of Rs.10,000 for the installation of pumpset and another Rs.10,000 for the construction of shed thereon. Along with these amounts, the appellant Devasthanam has to pay a sum of Rs.10 per tree towards maintenance.

2. The appellant herein contested the claim of the respondent by filing written statement stating that the agreement is only for planting the coconut trees to yield the respondent has to receive the compensation and surrender possession. Even though the lease period expired on 30.6.1973, it was extended for further period of three years and again for further period of five years and as such the lease period came to an end on 30.6.1981. Since the lease period expired, the appellant Devasthanam is entitled to auction the right to take the usufructs. Hence, the suit is not maintainable.

3. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction.

(2) Whether the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant.

(3) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to.

4. After elaborately discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court had dismissed the suit finding that the plaintiff is not entitled for the protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. Further the trial Court held that by virtue of Sec.51 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act (Act 57 of 1961), the protection of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act has no application to the present suit property which is a thope and hence the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/ plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.38 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Kumbakonam. The learned Subordinate Judge had reversed the decree of the trial Court, finding that the respondent is entitled for the compensation and till the compensation is paid, he is entitled to be in possession of the suit property, and held that the respondent is not entitled for the protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act or under the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act. However, the learned Subordinate Judge held that no prejudice will be caused to the appellant/ defendant if the respondent/ plaintiff is allowed to be in possession for some more time, till the amount of compensation is decided and ultimately decreed the suit, granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff till the compensation is paid to him. As against the said judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the appellant Devasthanam has preferred the second appeal so far as the findings are against them. The respondent herein also filed cross-objection so far as the finding of the lower appellate Court that the plaintiff is not entitled for the protection of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act.

6. On behal