JUDGEMENT

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.21 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Madurai Taluk are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit was for permanent injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal by the contesting defendants, the first appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the suit by allowing the appeal. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1.Has not the learned Subordinate Judge erred in holding that the plaintiffs have not proved with sufficient evidence that they are in possession of the suit land though the same were admitted by the defendants under Exs.B3 and B4?

2.Has not the learned Judge erred in admitting and receiving in evidence documents B3 and B4 which are unregistered sale deed? and

3.Has not the learned Judge erred in holding that the unregistered sale deed can be marked as documents because the same was not objected to at the time of their marking by the plaintiffs?”

2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds. He submitted that the suit property belonged to the third defendant/P.R.Subramanian. However, one Koolu @ Karuppannan was the cultivating tenant. He had three sons namely, K.Subramaniam, Selvaraj and Alagumuthu. In a partition that took place among the family members, the suit property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff/K.Subramaniam. The plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and his name was also entered in the record of tenancy rights. Selvaraj was the plaintiff's brother and Kalavathy was the daughter of Selvaraj. Kalavathy attempted to enter her name in the record of tenancy rights in respect of the suit property by substituting the name of the plaintiff/K.Subramaniam. Her application was dismissed and the appellate authority only remanded the matter. As on the date of filing of the suit, the name of the plaintiff alone was reflected in the tenancy register. After filing the suit, K.Subramaniam passed away and his legal representatives were brought on record. His wife examined herself as P.W.1. Three other witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiffs. Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. The trial Court after a consideration of all the exhibits marked by the plaintiffs rightly decreed the suit. The specific finding of the trial Court was that the plaintiffs have proved their possession over the suit property. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the first appellate Court erred in relying on Exs.B3 and B4. According to the contesting defendants, under these two documents, the original plaintiff had conveyed his tenancy rights over the suit property in favour of Kalavathy. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that both these documents are compulsorily registrable but have not been registered. Therefore, they are inadmissible in evidence. If these two documents are eschewed out of consideration, there is nothing on record to show that the contesting defendants have possession over the suit property. In any event, the fact that the name of the original plaintiff figures in the tenancy register and that the contesting defendants could not displace the same is sufficient to sustain the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. He called upon this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and restore the decision of the trial Court. 3.Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that the impugned judgment and decree do not warrant any interference.

4.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the evidence on record.

5.The suit on hand is one for injunction. Therefore, the only fact that is to be determined is to find out who was in possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. In normal circumstances, the entry in the record of tenancy rights should have played a substantial role in deciding t