The rejection of crucial evidence and the non-joinder of a necessary party can lead to the dismissal of a suit.

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

The second appeal has been filed by the defendant in O.S.No.236 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tuticorin.

2. O.S.No.236 of 2004 was originally filed as O.S.No.208 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin and subsequently was transferred to the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tuticorin and renumbered as O.S.No.236 of 2004. The suit had been filed by Ponnusamy against Kanagasabapathi, seeking a declaration that the plaintiff was a tenant in the suit property and to evict the defendant from the suit property and for payment of past mesne profits of Rs. 18,000/- and for future mesne profits. The suit property had been described as house bearing D.No.1, Keela Ranganathaperumal Street, Tuticorin Town. This suit, by judgment and decree, dated 29.11.2004, was partly decreed insofar as the declaration of tenancy and direction to evict the defendant was concerned but dismissed insofar as the claims for past and future mesne profits were concerned. The defendant then filed A.S.No.119 of 2005, which came up for consideration before the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin. The plaintiff, who was the respondent, died pending proceedings and his legal heirs were brought on record as respondents 2, 3 and 4. By judgment and decree dated 09.08.2011, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, dismissed the appeal. Challenging that dismissal, the defendant had filed the present second appeal.

3. This second appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"1.Whether Ex-A3, Yadasth is forgery document?

2. Whether after the death of appellant's father Ayyasamy Nadar, the tenancy rights devolved upon all the three sons viz., the appellant, the deceased plaintiff and DW-2?

3. Whether Marthandapatti Vairava Nadar Chatram is necessary party to the proceedings?"

O.S.No.236 of 2004 (Additional District Munsif Court, Tuticorin):-

4. The plaintiff claimed that the land over which the suit property had been constructed belongs to the Marthandapatti Vairava Nadar Chatram. The plaintiff's father Ayyasamy Nadar was an accountant in the said Chatram. He took on lease the land. The plaintiff put up construction. The plaintiff and his father were residing in the constructed building. The father died on 12.03.1989. The defendant then forcibly entered into the building. The plaintiff and the defendant were brothers. It was claimed that the Chatram had executed a Yadasth and the plaintiff claimed right through the said document. The plaintiff issued a notice, dated 26.04.1999 calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises. The defendant received the same and sent a reply, dated 15.05.1999. Since the defendant had refused to vacate the premises, the plaintiff filed the above suit seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is a tenant and for a direction to the defendant to vacate the premises and for payment of past and future mesne profits.

5. The defendant filed a written statement denying the allegations. It had been stated that the building in D.No.1 was taken on lease by the father, Ayyasamy Nadar. He put up a building bearing D.No.1 and D.No.1C. The defendant claimed to be occupying D.No.1 along with his father. D.No.1C was leased out to a tenant. Thereafter, the plaintiff requested the defendant's father to lease D.No.1C for running a flour mill. A monthly rent of Rs. 600/- was fixed and the defendant's father was receiving the same. After the death of the father, the defendant continued to occupy D.No.1. The plaintiff was occupying D.No.1C. It was claimed that the plaintiff had agreed to pay monthly rent to defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff wanted additional space and requested the defendant to give a portion of his building for occupation. Thereafter, the plaintiff leased out the suit property to a third party. He agreed to share the rent with his brother. There were disputes in sharing the rent. It is claimed that the plaintiff had no cause of action to institu