Civil court cannot declare a person as a cultivating agent.

The second appeal arises out of O.S.No.323 of 1987 filed by one Narayanasamy the first respondent herein, before the District Munsif, Villupuram, for permanent injunction against the appellants herein. The first respondent having died pending the second appeal, his wife has been brought on record as the second respondent herein.

2. The plaintiffs case was as follows:

The suit properties in five different survey numbers of a total extent of 2.97 acres were being cultivated by him by his own physical labour. His father was cultivating the properties along with him till the father died in the year 1978. The annual lease was 20 bags of paddy for the first crop and 10 bags of paddy for the second crop in a year if the lands were cultivated for the second crop also. His grandfather was also cultivating the suit properties as a cultivating tenant from the then owners of the suit properties. For more than 50 years the suit properties were being cultivated by the plaintiffs family. While the plaintiffs father was alive, he was paying the lease to the landlord Ranga Iyer, son of Venkatasubramania Iyer. After the death of his father, the plaintiff was managing the family and he along with the other members of the family, had been in continuous possession and enjoyment as cultivating tenant regularly paying the lease to the owner without any default. At the time of filing the suit, the lease for the first crop for the current year had been paid to Ranga Iyer. The lease paddy was being collected either by Ranga Iyer or by his father Venkatasubramania Iyer. Except the suit properties, the plaintiff was not cultivating any other property of Ranga Iyer or Venkatasubramania Iyer. The plaintiff and his predecessors had spent more than Rs.25,000 for reclamation of the suit properties. While so, the first defendant/first respondent had been proclaiming in the village that he had purchased the suit properties from Ranga Iyer, that since he was employed in Madras, his sister, the second defendant/second appellant herein was acting as his agent. The second defendant had the backing of rowdy elements in the village. The first respondent with his money power and influence was trying to take forcible possession of the suit properties from the plaintiff. On 1.4.1987 acting on the instructions from the first respondent, the second respondent along with rowdy elements in the village, tried to trespass upon the suit properties. It was under those circumstances, the present suit came to be filed. The plaintiff could not be evicted except by due process of law.

3. The first respondent filed a written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff as cultivating tenant. The plaintiff was never the lessee under the real owner Ranga Iyer. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and Ranga Iyer. Ranga Iyer sold the properties to the first defendant for valid consideration. The second defendant was the first defendants elder sister and as the first defendant was a permanent resident of Madras, his properties were being managed by the second defendant. It was false to say that she was having the backing of rowdy elements. Only the plaintiff had the backing of rowdy elements. The first defendant was not interested in taking forcible possession as there was no necessity for the same and the theory of trespass alleged was equally false. The plaintiff had taken advantage of the absence of the first defendant from the village and the second defendant being a lady, had filed the suit so as to harass the defendants. The plaintiff had in his credit a number of criminal convictions. The defendants were Harijans and the plaintiff had got an edge over them since he had a large backing go give trouble as he liked. The status of the plaintiff as a cultivating tenant was denied and unless and until he proved the same, he was not entitled to any benefit. Merely filing any petition subsequent to the filing of the suit would not give him any