The entry by the Record Officer under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969, is conclusive evidence of lawful possession.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Court, Tiruppur dated 19.03.1996 and made in A.S.No. 23 of 1992 confirming the decree and Judgment of the learned District Munsif, Tiruppur, dated 25.02.1992 made in O.S.No. 713 of 1984.

This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Court, Tiruppur dated 19.03.1996 and made in A.S.No. 24 of 1992 confirming the decree and Judgment of the learned District Munsif, Tiruppur, dated 25.02.1992 made in O.S.No. 301 of 1988.)

Commno Judgment:

1. The plaintiff, Kandasamy, in O.S. No. 713 of 1984, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur is the appellant in Second Appeal No. 773 of 1997.

2. O.S. No. 713 of 1984 had been filed by P. Ganapathy Gounder, who died pending the suit, and whose son, Kandasamy was brought on record, against Ammasai Gounder, seeking permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with peaceful possession of the lands totally measuring 31.05 acres in one block in S.F. Nos. 529, 546, 547, 548 and 549 in Eattiveerampalayam Cusbha of Appiyapalayam Group in Tiruppur, in the then Coimbatore District.

3. The 3rd and 4th defendants, Kandasamy and Muruganathan, both brothers, in O.S. No. 301 of 1988, also on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 774 of 1997.

4. O.S. No. 301 of 1988 had been filed by three brothers, Kandasamy, Duraisamy and Vadivelu against Ammasai Gounder, Kandasamy and Muruganathan, restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of the same suit schedule lands.

5. Since the issue involved in both the suits were with respect to recognizing possession based on rival claims as cultivating tenants over the same lands, joint trial was conducted and common judgment was delivered on 25.02.1992, dismissing O.S. No. 713 of 1984 and decreeing

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 713 of 984 / 3rd and 4th defendants in O.S. No. 301 of 1988 filed A,S, Nos. 23 and 24 of 1992 before the Sub Court Tiruppur. By common judgment dated 19.03.1996, both the appeal suits were dismissed.

7. Thereafter, the unsuccessful appellants filed the present two second appeals.

8. The second appeals had been admitted on the following substantial question of law

“Whether the courts below are correct in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant herein and by the respondent herein against him merely relying on Ex. B-6 which is not binding the appellant as he is not a party to it?”

9. Pending the second appeals, the respondent in S.A. No. 713 of 1997, Ammasai Gounder died and his legal representatives were brought 7 on record as 2nd to 4th respondents.

10. The said Ammasai Gounder was the 3rd respondent in S.A. No. 714 of 1997, and his legal representatives were brought on record as 8th to 10th respondents. The 1st respondent, Duraisamy also died and his legal representatives were brought on record as 11th and 12th respondents.

O.S. No. 713 of 1984 (District Munsif Court, Tiruppur):

11. The plaintiff P. Ganapathy Gounder claimed that the suit lands to one Fakruddin Sahib and that the plaintiff was cultivating the lands as tenant for the past 50 years. The tenancy continued under his son Sultan. He was also paying Government kist. He further claimed tht the defendant, Ammasai Gounder, a stranger, claimed to be owner and attempted to trespass into the lands. The plaintiff also claimed tht he had applied to the Tenancy Officer cum Tahshildar, Tiruppur to record his name in the tenancy records. Seeking protection of possession from the defendant, the suit had been filed for permanent injunction.

12. In the written statement, the defendant claimed to be the brother in law of the plaintiff and not a stranger. He claimed to have purchased 67/112 share in the suit lands and further claimed to be in l