Jurisdiction of the Court to decide the issue.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.252 of 1978, District Munsif Court, Kumba-konam, who succeeded before that Court and lost before the lower appellate Court, is the appellant in this second Appeal. The property in dispute is an extent of 2 acres and 62 cents of punja situate in R.S.No.31-2A in Marudhanallur village, Papanassm taluk and admittedly this property belongs to the respondent. According to the case of the appellant, originally, the property in dispute was uncultivable waste and in 1947 was leased out to the appellant on an agreement that the appellant should spend and reclaim the property and render it cultivable and plant coconut trees and rear them also at his expense. It was also further agreed that when the trees reached the yielding stage, the appellant should execute a lease deed to the respondent agreeing to pay rent. The appellant claimed that he spent a sum of Rs.3,000/- in reclaiming the land and in planting coconut saplings. The further case of the appellant was that he was in possession of the property as a lessee and had also been recorded as a cultivating tenant. An earlier suit in 0.S.No.534 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif, Kumbakonam according to the appellant, was filed by him praying for the relief of permanent injunction and though that suit was decreed by the trial Court, the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit holding that the appellant was not entitled to a permanent injunction against the respondent, but such an adjudication, according to the appellant, would not bar the present suit. The appellant reiterated his possession of the property and put forth the plea that the respondent had no right to forcibly take possession of the property from the appellant. Alleging that the respondent was attempting to lease out the property in open auction and that the auction was fixed for 24-7-1978 and the respondent without taking possession of the property from the appellant under due process of law cannot do so, the appellant prayed that the respondent should be restrained by an injunction from interfering with his possession of the property in dispute except under due process of law and other incidental reliefs.

2. In the written statement filed by the respondent herein, the case of the appellant that the disputed property was lying waste and that there was an agreement for reclaiming that property with the funds of the appellant and for planting coconuts and for the execution of a lease deed was denied. The status of the appellant as a cultivating tenant was questioned as, according to the respondent, the suit property was a coconut thope and as such exempted under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1961. Referring to the institution of 0.S.No.534 of 1970, District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, the respondent contended that the matter was taken in S.A.No.1332 of 1974 before this court and therein it had been found that the right of the appellant was only to enjoy the usufructs of the coconut trees without any rights to the soil and the dismissal of the prior suit in O.S. No.534 of 1970, District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, would operate as res judicata and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. Claiming that a notice was issued to the appellant with a view to put up the usufructs of the coconut trees in public auction, the respondent set up the plea that the public auction was duly held in the presence of the Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, pursuant to the directions given by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, and one T.Krishnaswamy Reddiar became the successful bidder in such public auction. Refuting the claim of the appellant that he was in possession of the disputed property, the respondent stated that the appellant was not entitled to any protection by the grant of an injunction and that the possession of the appellant, if any, would only be that of a trespasser. On the aforesaid grounds, the responden