JUDGMENT :

R. Pongiappan, J.

1. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 96 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru. He has filed the suit as against the respondent for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from in any way interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property and for cost. The learned District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru, by judgment and decree dated 30.07.2008, decreed the suit without cost.

2. Aggrieved over the said finding, the defendant/respondent filed an appeal in A.S. No. 52 of 2008 before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, seeking the relief to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, by judgment and decree dated 17.04.2009 allowed the appeal and set aside the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant/plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described by the trial Court.

4. The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The suit schedule property is the cultivable nanja lands owned by one Pitchaiammal, wife of Ramasamy Sasthiri. She leased out the suit property to the plaintiff by entering into a lease agreement dated 05.04.1985. As per the terms of lease agreement, the plaintiff has to measure 16½ Kalams of paddy to the land in samba and 16½ kalams in thaladi. Thus, a total of 8½ bags of paddy has to be measured per year. The name of the plaintiff is also entered in the rolls of R.T.R. Accordingly, the plaintiff is the cultivating tenant within the meaning of Act 25 of 1955. The landlady used to come to the village once in a year and collect the rent. The defendant is having cultivation near the suit land. Hence, he requested the plaintiff to sub-lease the suit property. But, the same was refused by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the fact that the plaintiff refused to sub-lease the suit land, on 11.06.2005 the defendant came to the suit property and obstructed the work. The complaint preferred by the plaintiff before the Police, was ended in vain. Hence, the suit has been filed for the relief of permanent injunction.

5. The averments made in the written statement filed by the defendant, in brief, are as follows:-

There is no lease agreement entered in between the Pitchaiammal and the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not performing' any agricultural work in the suit land. The land lady, Pitchaiammal was died in earlier. Only to avoid payment of rent, the plaintiff has stated that the landlady came to the village and collected the rent. It is not correct to state that the defendant is not having any right in the suit property. In reality, the father of the plaintiff Palaniyandi took the suit property on lease and cultivated the same for the past several years. He is having three sons, in which, one son namely, Kalimuthu was no more. The other sons namely, Ganeshan and Sachithanantham are still alive. At the time of death, the said Kalimuthu leaving his son namely, Ravi as his legal heir. On 17.07.1995, the plaintiff, the said Ravi and Ganeshan executed the deed for changing of lease and as per the said arrangement, the land measuring about 41.2/3 cents was allotted in favour of the Ravi. Thereafter, he was working as a cultivating tenant. The said Ravi was died on 14.07.2000 and at the time of his death, his mother Kashiammal and his daughters namely, Chellapappa, Vashanthi and one Ponkodi are alive. In fact, the defendant is the husband of the said Ponkodi. The said Ponkodi obtained the possession of the suit property by succession and cultivated the same, by raising necessary crops. The suit is bad for non-joinder of the said Ponkodi. In otherwise, the suit is liable for dismissal.

6. Based on the above said pleadings, the learned District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru, had framed necessary issues and tried the suit.

7