Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA, J
N. Subramaniam – Appellant
Versus
P. Kumarasamy – Respondent
ORDER :
1. S.A.No.19 of 2013 arises out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.673 of 2009 dated 04.07.2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode which was a suit filed for a bare injunction filed by the respondent herein. Against this suit, the plaintiff had filed A.S.No.1 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Sathyamangalam.
2. S.A.No.20 of 2013 arises out from out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.673 of 2009 dated 04.07.2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode against which the respondent herein had filed A.S.No.1 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Sathyamangalam. O.S.No.675 of 2009 is also a suit for bare injunction filed by the appellant herein against the respondent.
3. The facts of the two suits are herein below set out. The parties are referred to in the ranking as in the suit O.S.No.673 of 2009.
4. Plaintiff's case in O.S.No.673 of 2009: (Respondent in this Second Appeal)
(i) The plaintiff would submit that the two properties described in the schedule of properties in the plaint belonged to defendants 1, 2 and the husband of the 3rd defendant. The 4th defendant and the 5th defendant are the son and daughter-in-law of
The burden of proof for establishing tenancy rights lies with the claimant, and mere long possession does not confer such rights, particularly for caretakers.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a person related to the original tenant to seek the relief of permanent injunction and the rejection of claims of impersonation.
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.
Legal heirs claiming cultivating tenant status must establish physical contribution to cultivation; mere documentation of tenancy by a deceased parent is insufficient.
The court reaffirmed that established ownership protects lawful possession, reinforcing the principle that cultivating tenants cannot be evicted without adherence to statutory procedures.
The judgment established the power of Civil Courts to decide the validity of entries made under Act 10 of 1969 and the requirement for genuine entries as per the law.
The burden of proof in property disputes, the principle of possession following title, and the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals.
Lawful cultivation is essential for deemed tenancy under Section 4(1) of the Tenancy Act; mere possession does not confer tenancy rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
