The main legal point established in the judgment is the breach of statutory obligations under Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1961, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain suits for permanent injunction, and the voidness of agreements defeating the Act's provisions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayers:Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated, 06.08.2002, made in A.S.No.10 of 2002, on the file of Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, reversing the judgment and decree, dated, 27.08.2001, in O.S.No.73 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif Court, Valangiman at Kumbakonam.

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated, 06.08.2002, made in A.S.No.11 of 2002, on the file of Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, reversing the judgment and decree, dated, 27.08.2001, in O.S.No.74 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif Court, Valangiman at Kumbakonam.

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated, 06.08.2002, made in A.S.No.51 of 2002, on the file of Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, reversing the judgment and decree, dated, 27.08.2001, in O.S.No.73 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif Court, Valangiman at Kumbakonam.

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated, 06.08.2002, made in A.S.No.52 of 2002, on the file of Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, reversing the judgment and decree, dated, 27.08.2001, in O.S.No.74 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif Court, Valangiman at Kumbakonam.)

Common Judgment:

The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.73 of 2000, as against one Ramalingam and Arooran Sugar Mill for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents or employees from taking away the harvested sugarcane from the field without paying 25% of the gross produce of the sugarcane to the plaintiff-Trust. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court. As against which, the 1st defendant filed A.S.No.51 of 2002 before Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam. The 2nd defendant filed A.S.No.10 of 2002 before Sub Court, Kumbakonam. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to allow both the first appeals and dismissed the suit. As against the same, S.A(MD)Nos.477 and 479 of 2003 have been filed by the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.74 of 2000 with the similar prayer as against one Senthamarai Selvi, Sankar and Arooran Sugar mill for a similar relief. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendants 1 and 2 have filed A.S.No.52 of 2002 before Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam. The 3rd defendant filed A.S.No.11 of 2002. Both the appeals were allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge. As against the same, S.A(MD)Nos.478 and 480 of 2003 have been filed.

4. The plaint averments in both O.S.Nos.73 and 74 of 2002 are the same. The plaintiff has contended that the suit schedule properties absolutely belong to the plaintiff-Trust. According to the plaintiff, they have entered into an agricultural lease with the individual defendants in the respective suits. As per the said lease agreement, the defendants have to cultivate only paddy in the leased out property. The defendants have to pay rent at the rate of 25% of the gross produce to the plaintiff-Trust, even at the threshing floor itself.

5. According to the plaintiff-Trust, the individual defendants have cultivated sugarcane instead of paddy in violation of the lease agreement. That apart, the individual defendants, who are the cultivating tenants have entered into an agreement with the sugar mill that they will supply the entire harvested sugarcane to the mill. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to 25% of the gross produce and the balance 75% of the gross produce alone belongs to the cultivating tenant. However, as per the agreement entered into between the cultivating tenant and the sugar mill, the tenant has agreed to transport the entire gross produce to the sugar mill.

6. The plaintiff has further contended that the sugar mill is very well aware of the fact that the suit schedule properties belong to the plaintiff-Trust and the cultivating tenants are entitled to only 75% of the