JUDGMENT :

Prayer :- This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 19.09.1997 made in A.S.No.55 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.02.1997 made in O.S.No.385 of 1994 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai.

This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.09.1997 made in A.S.No.55 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.02.1997 made in O.S.No.385 of 1994 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their nomenclature before the trial Court, viz., 'the plaintiff and 'the defendants'.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the suit property. The defendants are his neighbor, who encroached upon his property and started to put up brick lane and therefore, without any other option, the plaintiff filed the suit, seeking for recovery of possession of the suit property and also for mandatory injunction for removal of the constructions.

4. The case of the defendants is that one Krishnamoorthy, who was the husband of the 1st defendant and the father of the 2nd defendant was a cultivating tenant as per the Tamilnadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act 1969 (in short, 'the Act'). Therefore, the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff supposed to have file the appeal in terms of Section 6 of the Act. Further, it is stated that there is a specific bar under Section 16(A) of the Act to file the suit before the civil Court. Therefore, he contend that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Based upon the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:

i) Whether the defendants are entitled to the protection under the Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act 1969?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitle to the suit property?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory relief as sought for?

iv) To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?

6. In order to prove their claims before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, he was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. On behalf of the defendants, 2nd defendant was examined as DW.1 and apart from examined one Mr.Govindaraj as DW.2 and got marked Ex.B1. The Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he has also filed his report on 28.05.1994, which was marked as Ex.C1.

7. The trial Court, on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit property and also entitled for mandatory injunction as sought for. The trial Court observed that the suit was filed on 22.4.1994, whereas, Ex.B1 is dated 29.04.1994, i.e. after filing of the suit, it was created and hence, held that Ex.B1 which is a copy of Record of Tenancy recognizing the husband of the 1st defendant Thiru Krishnamoorthy as a cultivating tenant, is a fabricated one and the defendants failed to prove the same and therefore, the defendants are not entitled to the protection under the Act. The trial Court also held that the defendants encroached the suit property and started brick lane activities. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved over the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court vide order dated 18.02.1997, an appeal was preferred by the defendants in A.S.No.55 of 1997 before the first appellate Court.

8. The lower appellate Court, on consideration of the findings of the trial Court and after hearing both sides, passed a judgment and decree dated 19.09.1997 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the said judgment and decrees of both the Courts below, the appellants/defendants preferred the p