Entries in the Record of Tenancy Rights Register are not valid and binding on a landowner if they are made without notice to the landowner and without any enquiry, and if they are fraudulently secured by the person claiming to be a cultivating tenant.

1. The first defendant in O.S. Nos. 72 and 71 of 1977, District Munsifs Court, Tenkasi, is the appellant in these appeals. The first respondent/s in these Second Appeals, who are brothers, instituted the suits, O.S. 72 and 71 of 1977 praying for a declaration of their right to be in possession of an extent of one acre and one cent and one acre and 84 cents respectively and for an injunction restraining the appellant in these Second Appeals from dispossessing him from those properties. According to the case of the first respondent/s in these Second Appeals, the properties belonged to one Sivaramakrishna Iyer. Petchimuthu Pandia Thevan, the 9th respondent in these appeals, was cultivating the suit properties as a cultivating tenant, having taken them on lease from Sivaramakrishna Iyer. Sivaramakrishna Iyer executed a settlement deed on 24.2.1943 in favour of his third daughter, Avudai Thangammal, conferring a life interest on her and providing for further devolution of the properties in accordance with the terms thereunder. Avudai Thangammal died on 7.7.1965. Thereafter, disputes arose between the appellant in these Second Appeals and respondents 2 to 9 herein. The appellant claimed that by reason of the operation of the terms of the settlement deed, she became entitled to a half share in the properties dealt with under the settlement deed. This was disputed by respondents 2 to 9 in these Second Appeals. This led to the institution of a suit in O.S. 4 of 1969, District Munsifs Court, Tenkasi, on 25.11.1968 by the appellant herein and in that suit, the appellant herein prayed for a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit properties, which included the properties in these Second Appeals as well. On 28.1.1970, the learned District Munsif, Tenkasi, granted a preliminary decree for partition in favour of the appellant herein. An appeal therefrom was preferred in A.S. 177 of 1970. Sub Court, Tirunelveli and that appeal was also dismissed on 10.8.1972 and a further appeal preferred before this Court in S.A. 14 of 1973 was also dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application for the appointment of a Commissioner for dividing the properties and the Commissioner submitted a report, in accordance with which, a final decree was also passed on 4.12.1975. An appeal therefrom was preferred by the 9th respondent herein in A.S. No. 39 of 1977, District Court, Tirunelveli, and it was dismissed on 25.3.1978. The appellant was taking steps to secure delivery of possession of the properties allotted to her share in accordance with the final decree. While matters stood thus, the 1st respondent/s in these Second Appeals instituted O.S. No. 72 and 71 of 1977, stating that after Pisanam 1970, the 9th respondent, who was cultivating the properties, expressed his inability to cultivate the same and surrendered the properties to the appellant and respondents 2 to 8 and thereafter, the appellant and respondents 2 to 8, leased out the suit properties to the 1st respondent/s in these Second Appeals and as such, the 1st respondent/s in these second appeals were paying the melwaram to respondents 2 to 8, who in turn, paid the share of the appellant to her. In short, the 1st respondent/s in these Second Appeals, claimed that they were cultivating tenants or the suit properties entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, Act 25 of 1955. In support of their claims that they are cultivating tenants, they also referred to their names being recorded in the Record of Tenancy Rights Register prepared under Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969. Claiming that they had paid rents till 1977 Pisanam and that the appellant during the first week of February, 1977 desired them to surrender the suit properties to her and that they refused to do so and further that the appellant was giving out that she would take possession of the suit properties by initiating delivery proceedings in O.