The court emphasized the importance of consistency in legal claims and upheld the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide disputes related to lease agreements and cultivating tenant status.

1. The present Second Appeal has been brought by the defendants against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.08.2005 passed in A.S.No.2 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court II), Ranipet, Vellore District confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 04.08.1981 passed in O.S.No.167 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Sholinghur.

2. A brief fact leading to filing of this second appeal is as follows:

(i) The suit lands admittedly belong to three plaintiffs. The first plaintiff is the widow. The second and third plaintiffs are the sons of Masilamani Mudaliar.

(ii) The plaintiffs are the owners of the suit properties detailed in schedule "A" to an extent of A.12.08C in Survey Nos.55/1 and 55/2, with a well in Survey No.55/1, Ocheri village, Arakkonam Taluk. The plaintiffs leased out the suit properties to one Kistappa Naicker, the defendant on 21.7.1967 on a yearly rent of Rs.2,000/- payable in two instalments by executing the lease deed (Muchilika) for two years and undertook to raise paddy crops alone only and not to raise any other crops in the suit land. As per the lease (Muchilika), the said suit properties were handed over to the defendant, Kistappa Naicker. Since the said Kistappa Naicker had executed the lease deed (Muchilika) for a period of one year, he did not execute the new lease deed (new Muchilika) for the second year. As the defendant did not execute a new Muchilika, he was not permitted to cultivate the land under the Muchilika already executed in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the defendant has to deliver the possession of the suit properties to the plaintiffs at the end of the first year of the leased deed (Muchilika), but he has not done so.

(iii) It was also averred in the plaint that the defendant did not pay the rent amount as agreed by both sides in the lease deed (Muchilika). But, the defendant has continuously occupied the land and raised plantain crops in 10 acres of land, sesame in one kani, groundnut in two acres and also raised paddy in a small area of one Kani and thus, the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the lease deed (Muchilika). It is also averred that the land was not properly manured for raising these crops. As a result, the crops raised in the land would seriously affect the fertility of the soil. Moreover, the defendant has also sub leased the suit lands for the cultivation of sugarcane and plantains under the pretext of engaging hired labourers. Further, the defendant and his family members did not cultivate the suit lands because his sons were students and his daughters are living with their husbands outside the village. Therefore, under such circumstances, the defendant is not entitled to the benefits under the Cultivating Tenants and Protection Act, as he is not putting his physical labour by cultivating the suit lands as defined under the Act. The defendant has also defaulted to pay the lease amount to the plaintiffs, hence, he has filed a suit in O.S.No.519 of 1971 for the recovery of the rent amount and for the damages from 1971-1973 on the file of the District Munsif, Sholinghur and the same is pending. The plaintiffs are entitled to claim damages from the defendant as the defendant continued to be in possession of the property in violation of the agreement and raising commercial crops in the suit properties for the period 1971 – 1972 and 1972 – 1973. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for delivery of possession of the property and to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- for damages.

(iv) The defendant has filed a detailed written statement stating that he has admitted the reltaionship of the landlord and the tenant under the lease deed dated 21.7.1967 on a yearly rent of Rs.2,000/-, but he denied the contents of the lease deed that except the paddy crops, no other crops should be cultivated in the suit properties. Even if anything is found in the lease deed dated 21.7.1967, there has been a material alteration b