N.SATHISH KUMAR
Udayam – Appellant
Versus
Ragupathi – Respondent
1. Aggrieved over the concurrent finding of the trial Court and First Appellate Court granting Declaration and Injunction in respect of the suit property the present Second Appeal came to be filed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.
2. The brief facts leading to file this Second Appeal is as under:
2.(a) The Suit property belongs to the First Defendant. The Suit 'A' Schedule property is cultivable dry lands. It was leased out in favour of the Plaintiff in 1395 fasli for raising groundnuts and ‘Isanthapalan’ therein. The rent agreed was Rs.150 per fasli. The Plaintiff had been raising groundnut, gingelli, black-grams, etc., besides vegetables contributing his own physical labour and that of the members of his family. He has also put-up a thatched watchman hut. He filed an application to record his name as cultivating tenant. After enquiry, the Record Officer passed an order directing the name of the Plaintiff to be recorded vide order dated 4.6.1987. The Plaintiff has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property as cultivating tenant thereof. Originally there were 80 coconut trees in the su
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.