The court reaffirmed that the rights of cultivating tenants are contingent upon actual physical labor contributions and that leasehold rights cannot be assigned without legally binding documents.

COMMON JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No.804 of 1993 and the defendants in O.S.No.2743 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trichy have filed the present second appeals challenging the order of the First Appellate Court wherein the findings of the trial Court were reversed.

(A)Factual Matrix:

2.Item Nos.1 to 3 are agriculture properties and owned by one Ahammed Sherrif, Maruthai Mazhavarayar and Dhanapal. The 4^th item is the family property of one Maruthai. The said Maruthai was the cultivating tenant of items 1 to 3 during his life time. After his death, his wife Elanchiyam was the cultivating tenant. The said Maruthai passed away leaving behind his wife Elanchiyam and his three daughters Amirtham, Kasiammal and Sellammal. These facts are not in dispute.

3.Elanchiyam along with his two daughters Kasiammal and Amirtham had filed O.S.No.2743 of 1991 for the relief of permanent injunction or in the alternative parition of the suit schedule properties. The suit was filed as against the third daughter Sellammal. The husband and son of Sellammal were shown as defendants. As per plaint averments, after death of her husband Maruthai, Elanchiyam is the cultivating tenant of the suit schedule property along with her two other daughters namely Kasiammal and Amirtham who are the exerting physical labour in items 1 to 3. As far as 4^th item of property is concerned, the property is liable to be partitioned among the plaintiffs and other daughter Sellammal.

4.Pending suit, the first plaintiff Elanchiyam had passed away and the other two daughters namely Kasiammal and Amirtham have made a claim to the suit schedule property on the basis of Will dated 08.04.1992 said to have been executed by Elanchiyam.

5.The suit was resisted by another daughter Sellammal on the ground that her mother Elanchiyam had executed a land lease surrender deed on 13.03.1989 in her favour and from then onwards, she and her husband are the exerting physical labour in the suit schedule property and she is the exclusive cultivating tenant of items 1 to 3. The said Sellammal did not dispute that item No.4 is a joint family property and liable for partition.

6.The said Sellammal independently had filed O.S.No.84 of 1993 as against her mother and two other sisters claiming injunction over first three items of the property in O.S.No.2743 of 1991.

7.Both the suits were tried together and a common judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court on 28.11.1997.

8.The trial Court found that the said Sellammal is in exclusive possession of items 1 to 3 as cultivating tenant based upon Ex.B104 land lease surrender deed and the other documents disclosed that she was cultivating the lands. The trial Court has proceeded to grant an injunction decree in O.S.No.804 of 1993 in favour of Sellammal.

9.As far as O.S.No.2743 of 1991, the trial Court dismissed the suit with regard to items 1 to 3 and decreed the suit for partition with regard to 4^th item granting 2/3^rd share in favour of the two daughters of Elanchiyam.

10.The said Kasiammal and Amirthamhad filed A.S.Nos. 109 and 110 of 1998 before the Sub Court, Trichy challenging the above said judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court. The First Appellate Court found that Sellammal has not established her exclusive lease hold right over item Nos. 1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties and proceeded to grant a decree for partition with regard to lease hold property also. However, the First Appellate Court confirmed the decree for partition with regard to 4^th item of the property. Challenging the said decrees, the present second appeals have been filed.

11.Both the second appeals