The central legal point established is that the determination of a cultivating tenant's status falls within the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, and the civil court cannot interfere with this determination.

1. The unsuccessful defendant before the Courts below is the appellant in the above Second Appeal. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 218 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal, for recovery of possession of the suit property and for mesne profit, alleging that the suit property originally belong to two sisters by name Kamatchi Ammal and Palaniammal, who executed a dedication deed on 5.5.1933 creating a trust in favour of the deities at Manapalli Village in Namakkal, the object being to manage the temple, to conduct Neivethiam, and lighting and other connected service. When one Muthuveera Gounder was acting as the Manager of the Deity, the suit property was leased out to the defendant by lease deed dated 1.3.1973, putting him in possession. Alleging that the said Muthuveera Gounder was not empowered to do, the respondent/plaintiff contended that the possession of the defendant/appellant was unlawful and therefore, he was only a trespasser. Hence the above suit.

2. The appellant/defendant resisted the suit contending that he was a cultivating tenant under the lease deed dated 1.3.1972, which was marked as exhibit B1 and therefore, he was entitled to continue to be in possession of the suit property and not liable to be evicted unless and until steps were taken under due process of law.

3. Upon the above rival contentions, the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, tried the suit on the following vital issues among other issues.

(a) Whether the lease deed dated 1.3.1972 is valid;

(b) Whether the possession of the appellant under the lease deed dated 1.3.1972 (exhibit B1) was unlawful?

4. While the respondent/plaintiff Semba Gounder examined himself as PW1 and marked the dedication deed 5.5.1933 as exhibit A1, the appellant/defendant examined himself as DW1 and marked the lease deed dated 1.3.1972 as exhibit B1 and also marked kist receipts as exhibits B2 to B9. Appreciating the above evidence, the trial Court held that exhibit B1 is not valid in law as Muthuveera Gounder, who was acting as Manager, had no authority to lease out the suit property, as per the dedication deed marked as exhibit B1, and consequently, held that the possession of the appellant/defendant was unlawful and therefore, decreed the suit, holding that the appellant/defendant was a trespasser.

5. On appeal, at the instance of the appellant/defendant herein, the learned District Judge, Salem, by decree and judgment dated 3.1.1989, dismissed the appeal, confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court.

6. Aggrieved by the said order dated 3.1.1989 in A.S. No. 45 of 1987, the unsuccessful defendant has preferred the above Second Appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the proceedings of the Record Officer dated 6.2.1989 marked as exhibit B20, by order dated 18.6.2002 in CMP No. 11391 of 1989, contends that the appellant/defendant is a cultivating tenant and it has been recorded so under the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969, by competent authority, after holding due enquiry in which the respondent/plaintiff, Village Administrative Officer concerned and others have admittedly participated. The learned counsel further contends that unless the said proceedings is set aside in the manner known to law, the appellant/defendant is not entitled to be dispossessed from the suit property.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the order of the Record Officer marked as exhibit B20 is passed only on 6.2.1989; but the above second appeal arises against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge dated 3.1.1989 made in A.S. No. 45 of 1989, confirming the decree and judgment dated 5.2.1987 in O.S. No. 218 of 1985 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal; and therefore, once the Civil Court had held that the lease deed dated 1.3.1972 marked as exhibit B1 itself is not valid in law, as the Muthuveera Gounder who was acting as Ma