Karuppanna Gounder and Others vs Ammal Appan

S. Nainar Sundaram, J.—The defendants are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiff is the respondent. The plaintiff laid the suit for

an injunction. His case is that his father, late one Kuttianna Gounder, was a cultivating tenant of the suit properties, which belonged to a trust, and

on his demise the plaintiff continued as the cultivating tenant of the suit properties, and the defendants who claim themselves to be alienees from the

trustees tried to interfere with his possession. The defendants did not admit the claims of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit properties as

cultivating tenant and further they questioned the maintainability of the suit of the present nature before the civil Court. The controversy was

resolved in favour of the plaintiff and first Court decreed the suit as prayed for, on 22.6.1978, holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit

properties as a cultivating tenant; the suit as laid is maintainable and the plaintiff is entitled to have his possession protected by an injunction. The

defendants appealed and the lower appellate Court found no warrant to differ from the views of the first Court and dismissed the appeal on

21.8.1980. In this second appeal, directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, this Court at the time of the admission of

the second appeal, formulated the following substantial question of law for consideration:

(1) Whether the civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suit by a person claiming to be cultivating tenant for the relief of injunction in the fact

of Section 16(A) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969?

(e) Whether the lower appellate Court, in this case, has committed an error of law in not considering the documents which have been admitted as

additional evidence at the stage of appeal?

Mrs. Pushpa Sathyanarayana, learned Counsel for the defendants-appellants herein on the first point would submit that in view of Section 16(A)

of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act 10 of 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the civil Court cannot entertain a

suit of the present nature and grant reliefs. The submission cannot be sustained in view of Periathambi Goundan v. District Revenue Officer (1980)

2 M.L.J. 89 : 93 L.W. 169 , wherein the Full Bench approved the view of Ramanujam, J., in Palanisami v. Ramaswami Gounder (1977) 1 M.L.J.

(N.R.C.) 5 , that a suit for injunction at the instance of a person who claims himself to be in possession as a cultivating tenant can be maintained

and the questions whether the plaintiff is in possession and his possession is that of a cultivating tenant can be gone into and answers given. The Full

Bench countenanced the proposition that only if the primary relief asked for is one of declaration of the status of the party as a cultivating tenant,

the civil Court may not have jurisdiction to decide the controversy with reference to which the primary relief is prayed for. In the present case, the

plaintiff wanted to maintain and protect his possession and incidentally on facts he was obliged to claim that his possession was that of a cultivating

tenant. Such a suit cannot be said to be barred by Section 16-A of the Act. Applying the ratio of the Full Bench, I have to answer the first point

against the defendants.

Coming to the second point, I have gone through the judgment of the lower appellate Court and I find that the documents admitted as additional

evidence relate to proceedings under the Act and from them, it is not possible to say that any finality on the question under the Act had been

reached at the relevant point of time, and the matter was pending before this Court in W.P. No. 2564 of 1980. That writ petition is being disposed

of only today, adverting to the relevant questions. Hence, it is not possible to say that omission by the lower appellate Court to consider the

implications of the documents admitted as additional evidence has in any manner vitiated its judgment. Under these circumstances, the second

appeal fails and the same is No costs.