IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

SA No. 822 of 2022 & CMP.No.16903 of 2022

1. Babu Chetty

S/o. Sadasiva Chetty, Sengarai Village,

Choolameni Post, Uthokottai tk,

Thiruvallur Dt. 2. Dakshayani

W/o. Babu Chetty, Sengarai Village,

Choolameni Post, Uthokottai tk,

Thiruvallur Dt.

Appellant(s)

Vs

1. Dhanammal

W/o. D. Srinivasan, Sengarai Village,

Choolameni Post, Uthokottai Tk,

Thiruvallur Dt. 2.D. Srinivasan

S/O.Dhanapal Chetty, Sengarai Village,

Choolameni Post, Uthokottai Tk,

Thiruvallur Dt. 3.S. Narendran

S/o. D. Srinivasan, Sengarai Village,

Choolameni Post, Uthokottai Tk,

Thiruvallur Dt.

4.S. Banu

W/o. M. Sivasankaran, 3-69, Rani

Nagar Street, Sathyavedu, Sathyavedu

Mangalam, Chittoor Dt, Andra Pradesh.

5.M. Sivasankaran S/o. Munivel Chetty, 3-69, Rani Nagar Street, Sathyavedu, Sathyavedu Mangalam, Chittoor Dt, Andra Pradesh.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.2 of 2019 by the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur dated 15-11-2021 confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.81 of 2014 dt. 21-12-2018 by the Learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukottai.

For Appellant(s): No Appearance For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Umapathi For Rr1 To 5

JUDGEMENT

The Second Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.2 of 2019 by the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur dated 15.11.2021 confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.81 of 2014 dated 21.12.2018 by the Learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukottai.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering in any way with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties till they are evicted from the suit properties by due process of law. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the plaintiff have preferred this second appeal.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the suit is as follows :

The specific case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant had orally leased out the suit items 1 to 15 on yearly Kuthagai basis of 7 bags of paddy per 1 acre in the month of September 2004. Further, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the VAO had also issued chitta and Adangal Extracts which shows that the first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the properties and they have been continuously cultivating the lands for the past 10 years upto 2014 and hence, they are entitled to the benefits of Tamilnadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and they were in possession and enjoyment of the properties by raising crops. The defendants, who are the owners of the suit properties are trying to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs.

4. Brief facts in the Written statement is as follows :

It is the contention of the defendants that they never leased out the property to the plaintiffs and no such oral lease existed between the parties as averred in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendants that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit properties and the defendants alone are in possession of the suit properties.

5. On the basis of the above pleading, the trial Court had framed the following issues :

1. Whether the suit properties are leased to the plaintiffs by the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief under Protection of Cultivating Tenants Right Act?

4. Whether plaintiffs have got prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour?

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

6. What other relief plaintiffs are entitled?

6. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.A1 to A12 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and