The judgment established the power of Civil Courts to decide the validity of entries made under Act 10 of 1969 and the requirement for genuine entries as per the law.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.9/93 dated 24.09.1998 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tuticorin, reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.569 of 1991 dated 28.07.1992 on the file of the Addl. District Munsif Court, Tuticorin.

Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.23 of 2000 on the file of Additional District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin dated 20.07.2000 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.167 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thiruchendur, dated 23.08.1999.

1. Aggrieved over the decree and judgment of the first appellate Court reversing the decree granted by the trial Court for permanent injunction, S.A.No. 889 of 1999 is filed, whereas the S.A.No.1946 of 2000 is filed as against the concurrent finding of the trial Court dismissing the suit.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Second Appeal No.889 of 1999 are as follows:

The suit property originally belonged to one Chelladurai Nadar and he has mortgaged the property to one Sakthivel Marthandam on 03.03.1972. Again the said Chelladurai Nadar has made over the mortgage to the said Sakthivel Marthandam on 19.08.1974. Thereafter, the said Sakthivel Marthandam was in possession and enjoyment of the property. The said mortgagee has leased out the property in favour of the plaintiff to cultivate the lands by raising shadow crops at the rate of Rs.425/- per year. The plaintiff has also registered his name as a cultivating tenant before the authority on 06.08.1983 and is continuing in possession of the property as a tenant. The defendant has purchased the suit property on 13.08.1982 and in the front side of the suit property, there are three shops situate, bearing Door Nos.74, 75 and 76. The plaintiff is also running a shop in Door No.74. The defendants has filed an application to evict the tenancy in respect of Door Nos.74, 75 and 76. The defendant has tried to evict the plaintiff from the suit property. Hence, the suit.

3. Denying the allegations in the plaint, it is the contention of the defendant that the suit has been filed without impleading all the tenants in the suit property. The alleged lease by the mortgagee is also denied and infact, the mortgage was made over to one Indirani, W/o. Sakthivel Marthandam and she was in possession of the property. The alleged registration is not valid in the eye of law. The plaintiff was never doing cultivation in the property in question. The other tenants are not impleaded in the suit. The defendant infact, is in possession of 19 cents and only in order to delay the eviction proceedings, this suit has been filed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the lease hold right obtained by the plaintiff in respect of the suit property is valid?

2. Whether the defendant has any right to led in the entire suit property in lease?

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties/owners of the suit property?

4. To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of injunction?

5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to A7 were marked. On the side of the defendant, he himself was examined as D.W.1 and one document was marked as Ex.B1. On behalf of the Court, Ex.C1 and C2 were marked.

6. The trial Court, after considering the entire materials, has decreed the suit taking note of the registration made under the 'Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (Act 10 of 1969)' [hereinafter referred to as 'Act 10 of 1969'] and granted injunction. The first appellate Court, however, found that the plaintiff is not entitled to any injunction and the entry made under Act 10 of 1969, has bee