P.R. Shivakumar, J.

1. The defendants in the original suit are the appellants in the second appeal. S.R. Lakshmanan, the deceased first respondent was the sole plaintiff in the original suit filed by him on the file of Sub-Court, Tiruvarur as O.S. No. 170 of 2003 against the appellants for recovery of possession, mesne profits/damages (past and future) and for costs. Due to the constitution of a separate Sub-Court at Mannargudi, the said suit came to be transferred to the file of the Sub-Court, Mannargudi and re-numbered as O.S. No. 34 of 2006.

2. The prayers in the suit were made on the basis of the averments found in the plaint, which are, in brief, as follows;

The suit properties belonged to the deceased first respondent/plaintiff, his family members and some of the third parties. The third parties were absentee landlords and they had entrusted their lands to the first respondent/plaintiff for cultivation. The first respondent/plaintiff did Pannai cultivation in the entire suit properties for several years. Due to his physical handicap (limping) and illness due to old age, he leased out the suit properties to the first appellant/first defendant in June 1993 with the understanding that the rent shall be paid in kind as follows:

1) One bundle of straw per mah for each year; and

2) 6 kalams of paddy per mah in case of single crop cultivation and 8 kalams of paddy per mah in case of double crop cultivation in a year.

It was a wholesale lease of the entire suit properties and the lease arrangement was oral. The first appellant/first defendant also agreed to handover possession as and when required by the first respondent/plaintiff to do so. The first respondent/first defendant who paid the rent till June 2000, left an arrears of rent to the tune of 100 bags of paddy at the end of June 2000. The first respondent/plaintiff wanted to resume possession to bring the suit properties under his own cultivation with the help of his brother and hence, he instructed the first appellant/first defendant not to commence the cultivation in June 2001. Pursuant to the instruction, the first appellant/first defendant along with appellants 2 and 3/ defendants 2 and 3 filed a caveat in the Court of District Munsif, Mannargudi on 06.06.2001. Thereafter, the first respondent/plaintiff caused issuance of a registered notice to the first appellant/first defendant on 07.01.2002 calling upon him to surrender possession by 31.03.2002 and to pay arrears of rent inclusive of the arrears of 100 bags of paddy for the year 2000-2001. Upon receiving the said notice, the first appellant / first defendant sent a reply dated 23.01.2002 through his counsel contending that all the three appellants/defendants had entered into a lease arrangement with the first respondent / plaintiff and they were entitled to the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants protection Act and that they made applications to have their names recorded in the Record of Tenancy Register. The first appellant/first defendant also duck pits, sold the excavated earth to third parties and thereby committed acts of waste. Thus, the first respondent/plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for recovery of possession, recovery of Rs. 1 lakh as past arrears of rent and past mesne profits for the years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 and for future damages/mesne profits.

3. The first appellant/first defendant and second appellant/second defendant jointly filed a written statement. Though the third appellant/third defendant filed a separate written statement, the averments made in his written statement are same as found in the written statement of appellants 1 and 2/ defendants 1 and 2. The plea of defence taken by the appellants / defendants in their written statements can be briefly stated as follows:-

It is true that the suit properties belonged to the first respondent/plaintiff. But i