JUDGMENT :

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

1. This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 24.07.1997 passed in A.S. No. 14 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1995 made in O.S. No. 79 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:-

3.1. The suit is filed for recovery of possession in respect of A schedule property and for the recovery of money and future profits and for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of B schedule property. The suit properties belonged to the plaintiff comprised in Survey No. 462 and sub divided as 462/2 situated at No. 38, thandavankulam Vattam, Sirkali Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District, ad measuring 41 cents and 2.34 acres respectively. Originally, the husband of the first defendant and the father of the defendants 2 to 5 one K. Jayaraman had taken the A schedule property for lease from the plaintiff for the period from 01.01.1964 to 31.12.1966 i.e., for three years, for running middle school in the name and style of Arulmozhi Aided Middle School, by putting up a thatched super structure and the yearly paguthi was fixed as Rs. 31/- and the lessee agreed to vacate the suit A schedule property after the period of three years. On the above terms and conditions, the paguthi deed was also executed by the said K. Jayaraman in favour of the plaintiff on 13.03.1964 and registered the same. In fact, he had been running the school over the period of paguthi deed (lease deed) and holding over on the same terms and conditions.

3.2. After demise of the said K. Jayaraman, the school has been running by his legal heirs viz., the defendants 1 and 2 to 6 herein. They did not pay the rent for the past five years as such, they have committed willful default on payment. The plaintiff is in possession of the B schedule property and he had been raising crops. While being so, the second defendant attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit B schedule property and the plaintiff also lodged complaint. Therefore the plaintiff terminated the lease in respect of A schedule property by notice dated 01.02.1994 and the same was duly served on the defendants. The defendants also replied by reply notice dated 10.02.1994 containing false and frivolous allegations. They contended in the reply notice that the suit A and B schedule properties were the subject matter of paguthi arrangement ad measuring 2.75 and they were paid a sum of Rs. 100/- per year for the total extent of the property and the entire extent of the property is in possession and enjoyment of the defendants.

3.3. The plaintiffs further averred that the defendants never in possession and enjoyment of the suit B schedule property at any point of time. In fact, they also failed to pay paguthi for the past five years at the rate of Rs. 31/- per year. Hence the suit is filed for recovery of possession in respect of A schedule property and recovery of money as rental arrears at the rate of Rs. 31/- per annum along with future interest and also for permanent injunction in respect of B schedule property.

4. Resisting same, the defendants filed written statement stating that the defendants predecessors i.e., K. Jayaraman was the paguthitharar under the plaintiff for the entire suit A and B schedule properties and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After the death of the said Jayaraman, the defendants raised crops in the B Schedule property and the paguthi arrangement covered the entire suit A & B schedule properties. In fact, the trees are situated in the B schedule property and completely enjoyed by the defendants. Thereafter, due to scarcity of water, no cultivation in the B schedule property. The defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the B schedule property and tree