JUDGMENT :

This second appeal has been directed against the Judgment and decree, dated 12.07.2010 passed in A.S.No.20 of 2010, by the Additional Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, wherein, the Judgment and decree, dated 20.01.2010, passed in O.S.No.412 of 2005, by the First Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, are reversed.

2. The appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S.No.412 of 2005, on the file of the trial Court for the relief of permanent injunction, wherein, the first respondent has been shown as the sole defendant.

3. Pending the second appeal, the first respondent died and his legal heirs were brought on record as appellants 2 to 5.

4. In the plaint, it is averred that the appellant / plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and she has purchased the suit property under a sale deed, dated 25.04.2005 for proper and valid consideration. The suit property was originally owned and possessed by A.R.Ramasamy and the same was under the cultivation of the plaintiff's grandfather Govindasamy Padayachi, as a cultivating tenant. They have entered into a lease agreement, dated 23.05.1953. Till the life time of the plaintiff's grandfather, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same as a cultivating tenant. After his death, his son, the plaintiff's father Boominathan continued to enjoy the same as a tenant and was not paying the rent to the original owner. As the plaintiff's father became unwell and was not in a position to cultivate the suit property, he has sub-leased the suit property to one Asokan, S/o.Pakkirisamy, who is the husband of the plaintiff, under a sub-lease deed dated 07.07.1995. The plaintiff and her husband continued to cultivate the suit property as absolute owners till the year 2005 and the plaintiff has purchased the property by way of a valid sale deed from one S.Subramania Chettiar, the power agent of Laila, who is the daughter of A.R.Ramasamy Chettiar. The said Laila inherited the property from A.R.Ramasamy Chettiar by settlement deed, dated 12.01.1970. The plaintiff is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property and in the meanwhile, the defendant has filed C.O.P.No.215 of 2005 and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Since the defendant has tried to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, the present suit has been instituted for the relief as sought for in the plaint.

5. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendant, it is averred that the defendant has not disputed the original ownership by A.R.Ramasamy and the cultivating tenancy by the plaintiff's grandfather and subsequently, by the plaintiff's father Boominthan and the relationship of the parties are also not disputed by the defendant. The plaintiff's purchased the suit property under the sale deed, dated 25.04.2005, is also not disputed by the defendant. The only defence of the defendant is that the defendant entered into a sub-lease agreement with the plaintiff's father Boominathan under a sub-lease deed, dated 16.08.1989 and the actual possession is with the defendant and he is cultivating the suit land. In order to evict the defendant by a cross cut method, the plea of sub-lease deed in favour of the plaintiff's husband is invented by the plaintiff herein. The defendant also denied the plaintiff's claim of actual possession of the suit property. Therefore, the defendant contended that his actual possession of the suit property, which is lawful, cannot be disturbed by the plaintiff except under due process of law and there is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the suit. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant as appellant has preferred an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.20 of 2010, on the file of the first appellate Court.

7. T