The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the intention of the parties and the substance of the agreement in determining whether a transaction is a lease or a license, and the importance of considering the form and substance of the agreement, as well as the legal possession of the property.

1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.7.2007 in A.S. No.23 of 2007 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2006 in O.S. No.10 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram.

2. The appellant in the present Appeal preferred a Suit in O.S. No.10 of 2004 before the Trial Court praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents herein, their men and employees and all those who claim right under them in any form or kind, whatsoever, from doing anything calculated to interfere or disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the appellant.

3. In the Plaint in O.S. No.10 of 2004, it is the case of the appellant as plaintiff that the suit property comprising old S. Nos.2948, 2950 and 2954 corresponding to Resurvey No.479 of Surulode Village having an extent of 100 acres belongs to the first respondent Thiruvaduthurai Adhinam. The first respondent owned several acres of land and the father of the appellant Michael Nadar took an extent of 265 acres of land on lease from the first respondent in 1950 and the suit property is a part of the said property. After taking the property on lease, Michael Nadar planted coconut trees and other fruit bearing trees in the property and he had also constructed rention walls for an approximate length of 2,000 feet over a period of 15 years since the commencement of lease. It is the further case of the appellant that the lease was renewed periodically by enhancing the rent and Michael Nadar also cultivated inter crops and tapioca being the main crop. Subsequently, Michael Nadar died on 06.12.2002 at the age of 102 and till the age of 95 years, Michael Nadar has been attending the property assisted by the appellant and in the year 2001 Michael Nadar made a request to the respondents, more particularly the third respondent to continue the lease in favour of the appellant and accordingly, from the year 2001 onwards, the appellant was recognized as the lessee of the suit property. The appellants father as well as the appellant paid the rent very regularly and that was also a reason for continuing the lease in favour of the appellant and his father for the last 40 years. However, the third respondent, who is authorised to receive the rent on behalf of the first respondent, never issued receipts in time and the appellant suspected the bona fides of the third respondent in delaying the issue of receipts and finally, the appellant was convinced that the respondents are attempting to dispossess him from the property, which resulted in filing the Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction.

4. The first respondent filed written statement and contested the claim of the appellant, wherein it is stated that the property was never let out to the plaintiff or his father and the respondents had only auctioned the right to take the improvements from the trees in the property like coconut trees, mango trees and other valuable trees and the respondents admitted the license granted in favour of the appellant to take the income for the Fasli years 1410, 1411 and 1412 on the basis of confirmation of auction in favour of the appellant on 16.03.2001. However, the first respondent emphatically denied the claim of lease made by the appellant, as according to the first defendant, the property was never subjected to lease either in favour of the appellant or his father and as such, the claim of lease is only a figment of imagination and is made for the sole purpose to continue in possession of the property.

5. The first respondent further contended in the written statement that the appellant along with others participated in the auction on 27.12.2003 and when he found that he could not match the amount of bid offered by the other bidders, he dropped out of the auction without completing the auction formalities and immediately, filed the Suit wi