An advocate cannot engage in agricultural tenancy due to Bar Council rules, which classify it as a full-time job, rendering such contracts void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.

JUDGMENT :

S. SRIMATHY, J.

The second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in the suit against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.02.2006 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi in A.S.No.134 of 2005 reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 14.10.2004 passed in O.S.No.17 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif Court, Senkottai.

2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant herein and the defendant in the suit is the respondent herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as plaintiff and defendant as per the ranking in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that the 1^st and 2^nd schedule of properties belongs to the plaintiff’s Srimadam and the plaintiff is in possession of the lands for more than 80 years (now 100 years). The 1^st schedule of suit properties consisting of threshing floor (Nerkalam) and Well was not leased out to the defendant. The 2^nd schedule of properties consisting of agricultural nanja lands are leased to the defendant and the same is having separate channel for irrigation. The defendant had become cultivating tenant which is against his legal profession and he is having money power and political power. And the defendant has planted cash crops instead of paddy, which is against the agreement between the parties. Further the defendant had failed to pay the lease amount and separate action has been initiated against the defendant. The defendant deliberately quarrelled as if the he has right in the suit properties and had filed O.S.No.349 of 1999 on the file of Sub Court Tenkasi and had obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.1278 of 1999 against the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff Srimadam had filed written statement in the said suit by stating the true facts, thereafter the defendant felt based on the true facts the said suit would not be sustained and would be dismissed, hence left the suit without contesting and the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, the defendant is hit by principles of estoppel and res-judicata. The defendant had encroached the 1^st schedule property and from 08.03.2002 trying to use the Well water situated in the 1^st schedule for agricultural activity carried in the 2^nd schedule property. The defendant is capable of doing anything. Hence the suit is filed inter alia praying to declare the defendant is not having any right to the Well and Nerkalam situated in the 1^st schedule property consequently restrain the defendant from using the Well water to irrigate the 2^nd schedule property.

4. The defendant had filed a written statement wherein it is stated that the suit is filed to create loss to the defendant. The plaintiff had failed to mention in which schedule the Well and the Nerkalam is situated, the survey number mentioned in first schedule of property is incorrect, the suit is bad since the same is against the provisions of code of civil procedure for not stating the nature of land and extent of land. The well is not situated in the 1^st schedule of property and the major portion of the well is situated in S.No.1158 and a small portion is situated in S.No.1173. The defendant had taken on lease the 2^nd schedule of property along with the 1^st schedule property wherein Well situated in S.No.1158 and S.No.1173 for 20 Kottai paddy per pasali and 2^nd schedule property for Rs. 800/- per year from February 1993 onwards. The then Madathipathi had received Rs.25,000/- for letti