The court affirmed the plaintiff's status as a cultivating tenant based on revenue records, emphasizing that the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's decision regarding possession.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.103 of 2014, dated 28.08.2020, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai, reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.105 of 2007, dated 26.08.2014, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranur.

2. The appellant, as plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in their original suit.

4. Admittedly the suit properties in three schedules came to be owned by the first defendant.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that his father and forefather are enjoying the suit properties as cultivating tenant for more than 35 years, that after the death of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property, that since the first defendant claimed more lease amount, the plaintiff was constrained to approach the Tahsildar, Illuppur Taluk to register his tenancy right under the record of tenancy register, that after enquiry, RTR order came to be passed on 16.05.2007 recording the plaintiff as cultivating tenant, that the first defendant in collusion with the second defendant and by alleging that he sold a portion of the suit property to the second defendant, the first defendant instigated the second defendant, who in turn has been attempting to interfere with the plaintiff's possession, that the sale deed if any executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is sham and nominal and as such, the same is invalid, that the defendants along with their men, on 19.09.2007 attempted to disturb the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property, but the same was thwarted and that therefore the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit claiming permanent injunction.

6. The defence of the first defendant is that the revenue records including the order passed by the Tahsildar were manipulated and the same are legally unsustainable, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the first defendant and the plaintiff, that the first defendant sold 2 acres of land in the suit property to the second defendant vide sale deed dated 21.09.2006 and the same was in possession and enjoyment of the second defendant, that the contention of the plaintiff that the sale deed in favour of the second defendant is sham and nominal, is totally untenable, that the cause of action alleged is false and imaginary and that therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

7. The defence of the second defendant is that he purchased a portion of the suit property from the first defendant on 21.09.2006 and even prior to the sale, he was in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property, that the plaintiff in order to dispossess the second defendant from the suit property, filed a vexatious petition before the Tahsildar, Illuppur and filed the present vexatious suit and that therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

8. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the pleadings of both parties, has framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff's contention that he is in possession of the suit property as a cultivating tenant is true?

(ii) Whether the cause of action set out in the plaint is true?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for?

9. During trial, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited 8 documents as Exs.A.1 to A.8. The first defendant has examined himself a