The court reaffirmed that established ownership protects lawful possession, reinforcing the principle that cultivating tenants cannot be evicted without adherence to statutory procedures.

JUDGMENT

The appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.79 of 2000, dated 22.07.2002, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Poonamallee, set aside the decree and judgement passed in O.S.No.96 of 1996 dated 28.08.2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the suit.

3. Challenging the reversal findings of the first appellate court, the third defendant has preferred this appeal. Before the trial court, the first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 96 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Court, Poonamallee, seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the three defendants, restraining them from evicting him from the suit property except under due process of law. The said suit was contested by all the three defendants.

4. On hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 79 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Poonamallee. The learned first appellate Judge, after considering the evidence on record, framed separate points for consideration and, finally, allowed the appeal by setting aside the findings of the trial court, thereby granting the relief in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the first appellate court, the third defendant has preferred this second appeal.

5. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff claimed that he is a cultivating tenant under the second defendant and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as such. As a tenant, he used to pay ten bags of paddy per year as lease rent to the second defendant, who is the owner of the land, and he cultivated groundnut in the suit property. The first defendant is the son of the second defendant, and, in collusion with the third defendant, all the three defendants attempted to unlawfully interfere with and evict the plaintiff from the property. The plaintiff contended that his tenancy has been duly registered under the Cultivating Tenancy Protection Act, and therefore, he cannot be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Hence, he filed the present suit seeking a permanent injunction against all the three defendants.

6. The first and second defendants contested the suit. The second defendant stated that he is the owner of the suit property and that the plaintiff is his cultivating tenant. As on date, the plaintiff is in possession, enjoyment, and cultivation of the suit lands. The second defendant further submitted that the third defendant had earlier filed a suit in O.S. No. 191 of 1979 and obtained a decree in his favour, and based on the said decree, he attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff, which he was not entitled to do. The second defendant also stated that the third defendant insisted that he evict the plaintiff, but he had not caused any interference with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

7. The third defendant contested the suit, stating that the suit property originally belonged to one Rajavelu and one Nagabhushanam, from whom he had entered into a sale agreement in the year 1978. He claimed that he entered into a valid sale agreement with Nagabhushanam in 1978. However, with an ill motive to defeat his lawful claim, the said Rajavelu and Nagabhushanam crea